Oh not that again
As Terry said back in October: Get thee to a thesaurus!:
On the other hand, it [kerfuffle] seems to be the way that the kids over at the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal say “Quit looking at that!” or “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”:
Today’s Wall Street Journal:
How to make the 2000 Florida brouhaha look like a kerfuffle.
Anything else? More bullshit perhaps? Ah yes:
Mr. Clinton’s 370-168 electoral victory over George H.W. Bush in 1992 put to rest any doubt about the new President’s legitimacy.
Are you fucking kidding us WSJ? Seriously you guys. The electoral college put to rest any doubt? Sadly, No!
Snow’s program had a triumphant air this week as he shot the breeze with Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Rep. Bob Dornan (who called Clinton an “illegitimate president”) and Snow’s former boss, George Bush. –Washington Post, January 5, 1995.)
Bob drops another one:
…Rep. Bob Dornan, R-Calif., who bellows his venom at Clinton: “This illegitimate president . . . a serial adulterer . . . a triple draft-dodger.” (Buffalo News, February 22, 1995.)
Richard Cohen in The Washington Post, April 15, 1997:
The loony right’s hate for Bill Clinton is well-nigh inexplicable. Its feelings transcend politics in the usual sense and Clinton is treated not as someone with a different, if daffy, ideology, but as an illegitimate president foisted on the country by the dark and powerful forces of immorality — in other words, misguided voters. He is loathed with a passion once reserved for schismatics and apostates.
The Guardian, September 21, 1998:
This hinges, in its political dimension, on the fact that in the hearts of many Republicans, Bill Clinton remains an illegitimate president.
Robert G. Kaiser in The Washington Post, December 20, 1998:
But it worked in a different way for Americans who didn’t buy what the Clintons were offering that night: They concluded that Clinton was an illegitimate president who did not deserve to sit in the White House.
Because of the low turnouts in primary elections, a handful of well-organised and amply funded right-wingers can oust a candidate who would capture the public vote, but who cannot survive the primary.
This constituency has, throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, believed him to be an illegitimate President and sought his downfall above all else. (The Observer, January 31, 1999.)
The Right attacks the Government, essentially on grounds of illegitimacy, just as Clinton was assailed as “an illegitimate President” as early as 1993. (Philip Gould in The Times (London, )September 25, 1999.
Furthermore, when the usual suspects weren’t complaining about Clinton’s legitimacy, they argued he didn’t have a mandate to do anything. Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2002:
Article by Isabel V Sawhill, economist at the Urban Institute in Washington DC, calls on President-elect Clinton to help make government more effective and more consistent with the public’s values; argues that the election provided no mandate for old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberalism.
WSJ, November 16, 1992:
Article by Gary Langer, a senior policy analyst for ABC News, contends that President-elect Clinton’s victory at the polls was not a mandate for Democratic-style ‘tax and spend’ programs; notes that candidate Clinton promised a presidency that looked less to government largess for solutions.
WSJ, November 5, 1992:
Editorial considers President-elect Bill Clinton’s mandate on tax policy; points out that the recent election saw a huge victory rate for tax-control ballot measures.
Bob Dole, November 30, 1992 (quoted in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution:)
“There isn’t any Clinton mandate,” said Mr. Dole. “Fifty-seven percent didn’t vote for him. I’ll represent the 57 percent.”
Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, November 17, 1992 (quoted in The Washington Post:)
On the one hand, Thompson said, “we ran a poor campaign,” but on the other, “only 43 percent of the people voted for Bill Clinton — that is not much of a mandate. . . . Republicans won nine legislative houses across the country. . . . Republicans have just as much of a mandate as the Democrats.”
Bonus extended entry commentary: The department of dumb fuck rhetorical questions:
If it’s an outrage against majority rule that President Bush was elected while receiving only 47.9% of the popular vote, would it be that much less so if Mr. Gore had won with 48.4%?
Yes — it would be less of a crock if the candidate who had the most support was the winner, rather than someone else.
The WSJ: putting the “R” into “Orwellian”!
Well, Bush’s election was a mandate for change after all.
It was a mandate to the effect that democrats were too damn stupid to keep a good thing going, so we chose to either cast our vote for Bobblehead Nader, or stay home. At least the republican sheep can say they closed ranks behind their party, wereas democrats decided to scatter their votes the four winds. Same in 2002 elections: we had a chance to put some brakes on this runaway train. Instead, we let the repugs crap on some true patriots who even now are trying to fight the Bush smear machine.
-whew, end of rant.
Sorry, my voice I’ll try to muffle,
I got a little kerfuffle, my feathers were a ruffle
as I packed my duffle.
A triple draft dodger? Avoiding the US draft and what other two countries? Ot was someone throwing Belgian ales on tap at Clinton? That would make him a trippel draft dodger.
Couple points….
1) One of the bizarre side-effects of all the nonsense about Clinton’s illegitimacy is that it contributed to leading Democrats’ unwillingness to correctly label Bush illigitimate, especially in the early months following his selection.
2) It was a mandate to the effect that democrats were too damn stupid to keep a good thing going, so we chose to either cast our vote for Bobblehead Nader, or stay home. At least the republican sheep can say they closed ranks behind their party, wereas democrats decided to scatter their votes the four winds.
Any evidence for this semi-self-flaggelation (“semi” because I assume marceaumarceau himself got out and voted for Gore)? What proof do you have that the GOP did a better job of closing ranks than the Dems? A very small percentage of Dems (much smaller than pre-election polls) voted for Nader, but a similarly small percentage of GOPers voted for Buchanan. Nader arguably made FL close enough to steal, but Buchanan cost Bush NM, and quite possibly IA. Also, Rove and company have claimed ever since that millions of (presumabely GOPer) Evangelicals failed to vote. And if you _are_ going to attack Democratic voting patterns, why not mention the millions of registered Dems who voted for Bush? They far outnumbered those who voted for Nader, yet oddly rarely get mentioned.
Hmm, if Dornan considers Clinton a “triple draft-dodger” (I’m guessing that means three deferments) does he consider Cheney a “quintuple draft-dodger” and Ashcroft a “septuple draft-dodger”? And what does he call Dubya, who used Daddy’s clout to get into the Texas Air National Guard, learned to fly an obsolete plane that he knew wasn’t used in Vietnam, didn’t take his physical and got grounded (because he was afraid of drug testing?), went AWOL instead of showing up in Alabama, and cost taxpayers a million or so dollars in doing all of that? btw, former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes is supposed to be on “60 Minutes” tonight talking about how he got Dubya into TANG at the behest of a Bush family friend. “60 Minutes” is supposed to have a bunch of other new information about Dubya’s “service,” too.
“Hmm, if Dornan considers Clinton a ‘triple draft-dodger’ (I’m guessing that means three deferments) does he consider Cheney a ‘quintuple draft-dodger’ and Ashcroft a ‘septuple draft-dodger’? And what does he call Dubya, who used Daddy’s clout to get into the Texas Air National Guard, learned to fly an obsolete plane that he knew wasn’t used in Vietnam, didn’t take his physical and got grounded (because he was afraid of drug testing?), went AWOL instead of showing up in Alabama, and cost taxpayers a million or so dollars in doing all of that?”
He considers Dubya the greatest American of all time. After all, Republicans are God’s Very Elect, so they can do anything they want (things no one else is permitted to do). Cheat on your wife while she’s being treated for cancer? You’re a Republican, of course you can do that! Send others to die in a war you’re too chicken to serve in? No problem, Mr. Republican! Belittle a Democrat’s Purple Heart for arguably a more serious wound than yours? Claim that the US has an indisputable right to do whatever it claims is in its national interest but no other country has the same right? Absolutely – YOU’RE A REPUBLICAN! It would never even occur to you that the standards you measure others by could possibly apply to you and yours. After all, God told you so.
How do they explain the Clinton surplus?
I suppose, then, that Kent Brockman was prescient in asking if something was arglebargle or fufurah.
You are missing the point. He’s not an “illegitimate President.” He’s not the President (period). I proved this in court. See hesnotthepresident.com. The action’s of an unconstitutitonal President are null and void. See http://news.indiainfo.com/2003/04/15/15musha.html.
I welcome your comments on the suit.
Yours truly,
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire