Edited Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

**TeddCatt** · 28th September 2009 08:09 AM

I hope this doesn't come across as "ranting', but:

Bill Clinton-just this morning saidthere is still a "vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at destroying thepresidency of Barrack Obama. (although he couldn't name anyonespecifically who is at the head of this "conspiracy" or anyone elsehelping to run or organize it)

Jimmy Carter last week, in his infinite wisdom said that the RepublicanCongressman's "you lie" interruption during Obama's speech was motivatedby racial hate. (although the Congressman has never said or doneanything to warrant the accusation his whole life)

You just have to wonder what the motivation is for these two formerPresidents to keep spouting off to the press with these flame-batingcontroversial statements. Do they think they're helping temper thevitriol political debate? Hardly. Do they think it makes the Democraticparty look better to the masses. How could it? Well then what keepsthem coming back for more?

The only logical conclusion is that they JUST CAN'T STAND BEING OUT OFTHE SPOTLIGHT. Evidently, a combined twelve years in the White Houseand control of the bully pulpit just aren't enough for these two.

I wish they'd show some class (like former Presidents Bush) and just keep quiet.

How 'bout you?

**nickcuse** · 28th September 2009 08:14 AM

[quote name='TeddCatt' date='28 September 2009 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1254146972' post='29178']

I hope this doesn't come across as "ranting', but:

Bill Clinton-just this morning saidthere is still a "vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at destroying thepresidency of Barrack Obama. (although he couldn't name anyonespecifically who is at the head of this "conspiracy" or anyone elsehelping to run or organize it)

Jimmy Carter last week, in his infinite wisdom said that the RepublicanCongressman's "you lie" interruption during Obama's speech was motivatedby racial hate. (although the Congressman has never said or doneanything to warrant the accusation his whole life)

You just have to wonder what the motivation is for these two formerPresidents to keep spouting off to the press with these flame-batingcontroversial statements. Do they think they're helping temper thevitriol political debate? Hardly. Do they think it makes the Democraticparty look better to the masses. How could it? Well then what keepsthem coming back for more?

The only logical conclusion is that they JUST CAN'T STAND BEING OUT OFTHE SPOTLIGHT. Evidently, a combined twelve years in the White Houseand control of the bully pulpit just aren't enough for these two.

I wish they'd show some class (like former Presidents Bush) and just keep quiet.

How 'bout you?

[/quote]

yea well i think ego is a big part of any politicians career. as for bush, i mean he was NOT popular, through much of his presidency and espcially at the end. so for him to be giving a lot of sound bites would be a bit silly. although cheney has certainly stayed in the spot light.

**boontito** · 28th September 2009 08:33 AM

America has a long tradition of allowing politicians to climb the political ladder, then once they've achieved the Presidency, putting them out to pasture. I personally like the idea of ex-Presidents (even ones I disagree with or didn't like) staying vocal and involved. These men have a good volume of experiences and insight to at least draw from, consider, and add to the national dialog. Why waste it by saying "you've had your moment, get out of the way"?

What they say can still be ignored, ridiculed, or dismissed; but I wouldn't view having their opinions or thoughts restricted simply because their administration is no longer in office as a good thing.

**Morgan** · 28th September 2009 10:43 AM

John Quincy Adams, fairly good president, would have done better too had it not been for Jackson after him, went on to be a representative afterwards. That's really great. Ex-presidents, if they can do it, should stay in the government realm some how to use experience during presidency to run a different job.

**boontito** · 28th September 2009 10:53 AM

[quote name='Morgan' date='28 September 2009 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1254156183' post='29265']

John Quincy Adams, fairly good president, would have done better too had it not been for Jackson after him, went on to be a representative afterwards. That's really great. Ex-presidents, if they can do it, should stay in the government realm some how to use experience during presidency to run a different job.

[/quote]

Very true. I would say it may even be accurate in some cases to say that it is the ego side of a President that can keep them out of public life after their administration is out of office.

What? Be an Ambassador or Representative? I was <cue dramatic music> President!

**Goldwater** · 28th September 2009 10:58 AM

[quote name='TeddCatt' date='28 September 2009 - 07:09 AM' timestamp='1254146972' post='29178']

I hope this doesn't come across as "ranting', but:

Bill Clinton-just this morning saidthere is still a "vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at destroying thepresidency of Barrack Obama. (although he couldn't name anyonespecifically who is at the head of this "conspiracy" or anyone elsehelping to run or organize it)

Jimmy Carter last week, in his infinite wisdom said that the RepublicanCongressman's "you lie" interruption during Obama's speech was motivatedby racial hate. (although the Congressman has never said or doneanything to warrant the accusation his whole life)

You just have to wonder what the motivation is for these two formerPresidents to keep spouting off to the press with these flame-batingcontroversial statements. Do they think they're helping temper thevitriol political debate? Hardly. Do they think it makes the Democraticparty look better to the masses. How could it? Well then what keepsthem coming back for more?

The only logical conclusion is that they JUST CAN'T STAND BEING OUT OFTHE SPOTLIGHT. Evidently, a combined twelve years in the White Houseand control of the bully pulpit just aren't enough for these two.

I wish they'd show some class (like former Presidents Bush) and just keep quiet.

How 'bout you?

[/quote]

Righties hate Obama because he's a liberal. Righties scapegoat the ACLU and Affirmative Action as being behind Political Correctness which they associate with Obama. Righties feel like only they can fight wars like big strong men. Righties hate illegal imigrants. Righties hate welfare. Righties hate a great many things, but they hate NOT being in power the most. IMO righties have a huge "man should be the head of the family" control freaky aspect to the way they view things.

But is the first thing that pops into thier heads when the subject of Obama comes up "I hate that N%GG#R"?, probably not. The hatred of him takes alternate forms so as to keep from being nailed for racism. Which is probably in play a lot more than righties will admit to us, or themselves. I think it's more complicated than Carter, Cosby, or Mathews tell it...but it would be naive to assume there is no racism towards Obama from the right...the question is how much goes unsaid, how many are in denial of thier racism, and how many have clouded and supressed thier racism amidst all the other reasons to hate Obama.

**jacksbrat** · 28th September 2009 11:48 AM

Anyone that still thinks there was not a right wing conspirasy to destroy Bill Clinton has rocks for brains. And the same people are now going after obama.

David Brock, a conservative-turned-liberal pundit, has said he was once a part of an effort to dredge up a scandal against Clinton.^[4] In 1993 Brock, then of the American Spectator, was the first to report Paula Jones' claims.^[4] As Brock explained in Blinded by the Right, after learning more about the events and conservative payments surrounding Paula Jones he personally apologized to the Clintons. He documented his experience in Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,wherein he alleged that Arkansas state troopers had taken money inexchange for testimony against Clinton which Brock had published in aprevious book. Adam Curtis also discusses the concept in his documentary series The Power of Nightmares.Brock has confirmed Clinton's claim that there was a "Right wingconspiracy" to smear her husband, quibbling only with thecharacterization of it as "vast", since Brock contends that it wasorchestrated mainly by a few powerful people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

Richard Mellon Scaife got involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave$2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt onClinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed thepresident and his administration. Sounds pretty much like a right wing conspiracy to me.

**Vortex** · 28th September 2009 12:04 PM

You know, you almost had me agreeing with you but your title is skewed and then you posted this

"I wish they'd show some class (like former Presidents Bush)"

Class and Bush do not go together.

**TeddCatt** · 28th September 2009 03:21 PM

[quote name='jacksbrat' date='28 September 2009 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1254160087' post='29312']

Anyone that still thinks there was not a right wing conspirasy to destroy Bill Clinton has rocks for brains. And the same people are now going after obama.

David Brock, a conservative-turned-liberal pundit, has said he was once a part of an effort to dredge up a scandal against Clinton.^[4] In 1993 Brock, then of the American Spectator, was the first to report Paula Jones' claims.^[4] As Brock explained in Blinded by the Right, after learning more about the events and conservative payments surrounding Paula Jones he personally apologized to the Clintons. He documented his experience in Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,wherein he alleged that Arkansas state troopers had taken money inexchange for testimony against Clinton which Brock had published in aprevious book. Adam Curtis also discusses the concept in his documentary series The Power of Nightmares.Brock has confirmed Clinton's claim that there was a "Right wingconspiracy" to smear her husband, quibbling only with thecharacterization of it as "vast", since Brock contends that it wasorchestrated mainly by a few powerful people.

http://en.wikipedia....wing_conspiracy

Richard Mellon Scaife got involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave$2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt onClinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed thepresident and his administration. Sounds pretty much like a right wing conspiracy to me.

[/quote]

You forgot one: It was those right wing conspirators that made clinton pull down his zipper with Ms. Lewinski in the oval office. Those sneaky bastards-how did they do that?!?

**boontito** · 28th September 2009 03:28 PM

[quote name='TeddCatt' date='28 September 2009 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1254172912' post='29412']

You forgot one: It was those right wing conspirators that made clinton pull down his zipper with Ms. Lewinski in the oval office. Those sneaky bastards-how did they do that?!?

[/quote]

The same way some left wing conspirators knew that a Kenyan born baby would rise up to be President so they forged his birth certificate 44 years earlier just in case.