I think this is more of a psychology question than a political one. In other words, there actually is an answer, but to see it you have to remove the political "veneer" sorrounding the question.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ANSWER. I know it's hard to remove politics from our way of thinking, but you have to in order to see this. I would not answer this question on a political basis because I don't "do politics" anymore.
You're right, first of all. It is generally considered to be acceptable to bash Clinton, but it's almost as though the general reaction to bashing Bush is that people get offended. I've even seen strident liberals get offended by Bush bashing. On the other hand, I've seen them join in on occasion for Clinton bashing.
Here's why:
1. BILL CLINTON - The heir sorrounding Bill is that things come easy for him. He had a fairly successful run at president (what % of credit he deserves is a political issue), and he has a lot of charisma.
Now, here's the psychology: In our perceptions of those around us, especially the more popular and talented, we consider self control to be a basic human faculty. When we see someone, like Bill, who has so much going for him...but he lacks self control on some level...we subconsciously take that as a license to criticise and a reason to lose respect for the person.
It's like the popular girl who gets too drunk at a party. Before that, she had a great reputation, above reproach. Now you and the other girls remember seeing her that night slurring her words, stumbling around and hanging on all the guys. Whenever you see her now, it's okay for one of the girls to crack a joke about the 'ho. Especially if she continues to do it!!!
The comparison would be to Clinton's womanizing.
2. GWB - The heir surrounding Bush is that he tries really really hard. And, very importantly, we have no character or lack of self control issues in our perception of him. This tends to make him an extremely sympathetic person to us. Psychologically, this makes the fact that he's kind of dumb cause us to be even more sympathetic to him.
It's like a kid at The Special Olympics who runs funny, but he's trying really really hard.
You and the other girls would feel perfectly free to loudly bash and make fun of the "party 'ho" on the one hand. But you would not dream of bashing that poor kid in The Special Olympics. It would be offensive to do so when others were close enough to hear you.
Also contained in my answer is why Clinton is so loved by liberals on one hand, but disdained on the other. It's because he brought it on himself, the license people feel they have towards bashing him.
2007-06-15 01:57:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by M O R P H E U S 7
·
8⤊
0⤋
The office of President of the United States of America is one that deserves some respect. That doesn't mean you can't criticize the President, just that such should be done in a manner that respects the office.
That's something the Democrats are forgetting, today, just as the Republicans seemed to forget it durring the Clinton years.
It's not a difficult pattern to figure out.
2007-06-13 15:21:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's all a load of crap, do not ever permit someone inform you what you are saying in Anti-American, seeing that our nation used to be established at the middle precept of giving all people the correct to talk their brain. You can say some thing you wish and you do not have got to fear approximately being dragged from your apartment within the core of the night time such as you did in Soviet Russia. If you're born on this nation, you're an American citizen, irrespective of what you are saying. The motives why folks blame former president Clinton for what is going on on this planet at present is past me. He did a rattling god process no longer getting us right into a by no means-finishing struggle, or sending our economic climate right into a recession. For folks that say he is in charge for nine/eleven seeing that he did not kill Osama Bin Laden while he had the hazard, that is like pronouncing FDR is in charge for the Holocaust seeing that he did not take out Hitler earlier than his upward thrust to vigor in Germany. At the time of Clinton's presidency, Osama Bin Laden used to be a no person within the terrorist international, and wasn't even so much hindrance to the CIA on the time. If you fairly wish to grasp why it's the means it's, learn Imperial Hubris through Micheal Scheuer, a 22-yr CIA analyst that led the bin Laden unit from 2001 to 2004. I could additionally advocate looking National Geographic's "Inside nine/eleven", it is going intensive approximately the Clinton management, and offers a standard evaluate of the parties main as much as it. Not to misspeak the president, however Republicans have disorders in relation to ever admitting themselves to be at fault. They continuously look to discover some way of pointing the finger at all people else for what is unsuitable on this planet at present. But liberals like Obama and Hilary, they spotlight how democrats will factor the finger at eachother earlier than protecting their possess beliefs and ideals, whether or not they are correct or unsuitable.
2016-09-05 15:36:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by betker 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i support the repub party so that has to include bush i don't have to like all of his priorities. i didn't like clinton or clinton because of the cousre they wanted to take america. i have a hard time with all the hatred coming from the democrats at bush. i don't see that hatred toward clinton. bashing is one thing but out and out hatred is something else.
2007-06-13 10:39:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by mr doodles 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because it suits them.
Notice: now the shrub has troops in Iraq, we are not supposed to say anything bad about him because it was demoralizing to the troops who are overseas.
When we had troops in the Balkans it was open season on Clinton, but no one seemed to care about how the troops would feel about it then.
In other words, republicans bash Clinton and ignore their own guy's faults because it suits them. I mean, think about it. Have you ever met a republican who did anything that wasn't self-centered and/or self-serving?
Also...Clinton cheating with chubby intern=Funny
Bush murdering millions=Disgusting
When Clinton Lied No One Died!!!
2007-06-13 09:27:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by joanby 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Are you talking about Little George and his "Good Will Band"
Because they are just sooo sure that THEY are RIGHT and if
you don't just gobble-up every shred of their "BS STEW" and
lick the plate clean. Then without anymore questions then you,
MUST BE liberal,anti-religion,dope peddling,child molesting,
Godless,moron,immoral,stupid,blind,insensitive,@ss for not buying all that crap they are trying to shove down your throat!
HOW DARE YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF AND NOT SIT QUIETLY WHILE THEY BASH,BULLY AND BS YOU !!!!
2007-06-13 11:16:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The only thing that Clinton did wrong was, he got caught. He did what all presidents have done, but was too durn honest, and admitted it.
Bush has lied to the people from day one. He lied when he went into Iraq, looking for WMDs, which wasn't there. He has ordered our American troops to kill innocent women and children, just because he wants to take over that country. History will show, that Bush was the worst president of all time.
2007-06-13 09:27:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Childishness of the right.You have to bash with your little slogans because you can't really come up with anything meaningful to say or have the elucidation to actually make into a grammatical phrase.
2007-06-13 10:06:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Your Teeth or Mine? 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I thought you were a con... yes. It is true. We are anti-American because we aren't 100% supportive of our President although they bashed Clinton everyday. Clinton did not have these bad days during his administration. Also, I have noticed that they always suggest we shouldn't have the right to an opinion. So what's the point of the war if the people supporting it are trying to take away free speech?
2007-06-13 09:20:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
5⤋
Brian
"Who said it was OK for Republicans to bash Clinton? Caling him a liar wasn't bashing because we knew he was."
Like how thinking people know George Bush has continuously violated the United States Constitution and is a traitor. It's not bashing Bush. It's stating a fact.
You are correct Brian
Bill Clinton is a liar
and
George Bush is a traitor
(we can get out our Constitutions and go over every Bush violation...it's all right there)
2007-06-13 09:24:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Peace Warrior 4
·
5⤊
6⤋