« Immoral Equivalence | Main | National (insta)Pundit Radio »
March 5, 2007
Clinton Fatigue . . . Edwards Fatigue . . . Etc. Fatigue
"Clinton fatigue" was and remains a tactical tool of the GOP.
But I don't mean the term to be Clinton-specific. Not at all.
I'm using the term "Clinton fatigue" to describe a means of poitical attack intended only to denigrate, demean, and destroy whomever the Democrat[ ] Party puts forward as a presidential candidate -- when policy differences won't carry the debate.
Al Gore got the treatment in '00. Kerry in '04.
John Edwards recently got a heavy dose from Ann Coulter -- to the ringing applause of the CPAC
Obama's gotten a taste as well.
Those who talk about Clinton fatigue are missing the bigger picture. It's "Democrat[ ] President fatigue" -- read, character defect.
Consider. Clinton fatigue wasn't about Bill Clinton's policy follies. (In comparison to Bush's Iraq, were there any?)
Clinton fatigue was about anything but policy to smear the president's character. Hence, we get from the GOP that Gore invented the internet. Or Kerry lied about his Vietnam service. Or Edwards is a faggot. Or Obama went to an anti-American madras.
It doesn't matter who the Democrat[ ] nominee is. For the GOP, its just about creating a storyline that changes the debate from policy to character -- on the premise that voters treat character as a proxy for policy savvy and political judgment.
Here's hoping that if Bush/Cheney accomplished anything positive in their time, it's disabusing Americans of the idea that advertised character -- and claimed experience -- are a proxy for success in the White House. Clearly, they are not.
Posted by shertaugh at March 5, 2007 5:40 AM
Comments
Shertaugh:
You have a classic case of "the paranoid outlook." You scan mountains of inconsistent, chaotic, self-contradictory "news" and pluck out only the handful of events that support your thesis, and ignore everything else.
While you have been patiently filtering the news, other events have occurred that were every bit as telling as your nuggets, but they just didn't get the same play. Bill Mahrer expressed his disappointment that VP Cheney survived an assasination attempt. That doesn't make "news" because it is just so mundane these days. But consider the freak-out you would have if Ann Coulter said something similar about a prominent Democrat. (...dumdeedum... I'm allowing you to contemplate...) And how about Mitt Romney? A major newspaper "investigated" his family history and discovered (gasp) that his great-great-grandfather was a polygamist Mormon. And what, exactly, does that have to do with Gov. Romney? I dunno, but you gotta grab the mud where you find it!
Contrary to your assertions, the Left actually has carte blanche to say almost anything it wants to about white, straight, conservative males. Nothing seems to be beyond the pale. Al Franken could say (for example) how much he would look forward to Rush Limbaugh getting raped by his black cellmate, and nobody wouldn't blink an eye. But if Rush Limbaugh said how eagerly he was hoping that Rosie O'Donnell would get raped by a bunch of black men, it would be an international incident.
Your insistence that all "civic virtue" resides on one side of the political spectrum is simply not supported by the facts. I don't understand why it is so important for you to push such an extreme, black and white version of reality.
Posted by: Sigmund at March 5, 2007 12:36 PM