Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Anti-Right Books 18

Journal by pudge

There were a ton of anti-left books against Clinton, Hillary, Gore etc. during the 90s. They didn't seem to do much to hurt Clinton. Now there are a ton of anti-right books. My questions are twofold: will these books, or the underlying hatred, do any more to hurt Bush than the previous hatred did to hurt Clinton; and which books sold more, the ones of the 90s or the ones of today? The latter question I intentionally leave inspecific, if you have any data, I'd be interested in seeing it, just qualify what the data specifically refers to.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Right Books More

Anti-Right Books

Comments Filter:
  • I've never really understood the vitriol against the Clintons and would really (honestly) like someone to explain it to me in a rational, well written response.

    To answer your question though, I suppose many of the anti-right books out there promise to fuel the debate thus potentially costing the Bush administration a next term which would be a slap in the face of the Republican movement. The Clinton administration obviously was re-elected, but I would not be surprised if Bush was only in the Whitehouse on
    • I've never really understood the vitriol against the Clintons and would really (honestly) like someone to explain it to me in a rational, well written response.

      Do you understand the vitriol against Bush? If so, how can you not understand the vitriol against Clinton? It all boils down to "I disagree with you, so you must be evil."

      To answer your question though, I suppose many of the anti-right books out there promise to fuel the debate thus potentially costing the Bush administration a next term which
      • Do you understand the vitriol against Bush? If so, how can you not understand the vitriol against Clinton? It all boils down to "I disagree with you, so you must be evil."

        I don't pay a lot of attention in this area but I'm not noticing the kind of crank stuff in the anti-bush material, the "out there" conspiracy stuff. There will always be cranks but I'm not seeing their notions raised to the national level as nonsense like "Bill killed Vince Foster" was. There the supposed ties between the Bush and bin
        • Come now, please be serious. There were real accusations of Clinton that amounted to more substance than the Vince Foster stuff (and considerably more substance than the energy company ties, too) . I'm not even going to get into specifics because that is not the discussion I'd like to have here, but I can't take you seriously if talk this way.
      • It all boils down to "I disagree with you, so you must be evil."

        Nah, I don't think that the Bush camp is evil. Rather, I feel that they are simply more self centered and self serving than they should be.

        (I'd say this argues against what you are saying, because the angry people under Clinton were able to elect a Republican Congress, whereas the angry people under Bush were not able to swing the Congress to the Democrats.)

        Some might say that the whole redistricting strategy the Republicans used made t
        • Environmentalists and folks with more socially oriented agendas may disagree, but I believe the health care situation will be a huge issue in the upcoming elections as well.

          That misses the point of what I am talking about. I am saying that the only significant difference in anger between Bush and Clinton that I can see possibly making a difference is the war. Yes, people will be angry about health care, but people were angry about Clinton's health care plans before (that never succeeded). Yes, people a
          • Sure, I am not saying we will be gone from Iraq this time next year, but it is possible we will have fewer troops there, with more control in the hands of Iraqis, and less violence in the cities. Actually, all of those things are likely I think, but to what degree is anyone's guess.

            I can only hope that other countries start to take a more active role and that the attacks in Iraq will subside, but I would bet that things are still going to be problematic, one, two possibly three or more years into the fut
            • I would bet that things are still going to be problematic, one, two possibly three or more years into the future.

              In regard to the topic at hand about elections: The question is not whether we are there or not, whether countries are helping us or not, whether there are problems or not. What matters is if the perception is that things are substantially improving. We'll see.

              As to the strife between Bush and Rumsfeld and Powell, I don't buy it. I don't think it is nearly as strained as many people say it

              • Rumsfeld has done a great job in Iraq. Almost all of the complaints people have about Iraq have to do with things that are out of his control.

                Interesting perspective. We were told that our military was ready to fight a sustained conflict on two theater-sized fronts. Why was it necessary to activate reserve units to invade a couple of countries the size of California? Why do the troops' return-home schedules keep slipping? Didn't Rumsfeld go on Meet The Press back in March, suggesting the conflict woul

        • Actually, I would also blame the lack of a democratic rally on some of the age groups they draw support from.

          18-early 20-somethings don't turn out and vote like other groups. Which is sad, really.

          Just a thought, and a possible explanation.
          • Well, I dunno ... yes, there is more anger amongst younger people (compared to Clinton) in my experience, but also, support for the war decreases with age. The older people may not be as angry, but they are more against the Bush policies (at least, this one major one).

      • Politically, the best way to fight health care costs is by attacking the lawyers and HMOs who drive up the costs.

        Perhaps it would be helpful to point out that the HMOs have generally been lowering the costs of health care, by devising ways to provide less of it (usually by tightly regulating physician behavior and treatment options). And the lawyers have been litigating essentially identical malpractice costs, on average, since the 50s. Sure, you hear about astronomical jury awards all the time, but tho

        • Note I said "politically." I am not saying that is the best way to fix things, only that it is the winning strategy for the elections.

          As to the economy, yes, I am awfully confident. All the leading economic indicators are up, the economy is growing faster than most predicted a few months ago, and the jobless rate has halted and seems poised for a turnaround.

          BTW, you make the same mistake many people do when you assume -- IMO, unreasonably, but regardless, it is still an assumption -- in your predictions

          • All the leading economic indicators are up

            On the contary, last week it was reported that the index of leading indicators declined in September [msnbc.com].

            The whole idea is that revenues will increase in the next few years. Will it happen? We'll see. It happened under JFK, it happened under Reagan, when they cut taxes.

            The difference being that JFK and Reagan gave tax cuts in large part to people who were poised to put their savings back into the economy, whereas Bush has given the bulk of $3.12 trillion annua

            • On the contary, last week it was reported that the index of leading indicators declined in September [msnbc.com].

              Yes, dipped from the previous month, but up over the last several months. I try not to pay attention to month-to-month fluctuations ... the minimum resolution I really care about is quaterlies.

              And yes, the tax cuts were not the best. I am not so concerned with "the rich getting richer," but just that I am unconvinced the dividend tax cuts are the best to help the economy, and I would have pr
  • The anti-right books will wind up helping Bush more than they hurt him. People are dumb, but they aren't stupid, and when Michael Moore mixes good, honest rhetoric with his special brand of bullshit and propaganda, he makes all liberal ideology look false.

    Anyone who can only see one side of the issues (or refuses to admit to the faults of their perspective) will look like a liar and a fraud. The only people that watch Michael Moore's stuff and agree with all of it 100% are the same kind of fanatics that wa
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close