The Bill Clinton Card

[Ringo84]

Did anyone else notice how mAnn Coulter played the "Bill Clinton card" during her hateful comments about the 9/11 widows? I did, and I was thinking about it this morning.

This is a common strategy for many RWs: when you don't really have a great argument under your belt, trot out Bill Clinton, regardless of the subject at hand. They hope that we will forget the topic and start defending Bill Clinton, thereby allowing them to misdirect us.

I've noticed this a lot lately. It seems that a lot of RWs who talk or write about politics can't talk about any subject - the War in Iraq, the Democratic party, wiretapping - without somehow bringing Clinton into the conversation.

That's manipulation. The RWs have found a subject that "works" against us to some degree, and uses it anytime they've confronted us with a viewpoint they can't defend, either due to bad arguments ("we were attacked on 9/11. Therefore, the President can do whatever he wants", etc) or moral bankruptcy ("gays are evil because we say so and our narrow interpretation of the Bible says so"). We shouldn't let them get away with it!

We say that * uses 9/11 as a convenient shield against any criticism: "Katrina?" 9/11. "wiretapping?" 9/11. This is the same thing. We just haven't called them down on it yet.

When we're arguing with a RW and they bring up Clinton, we ought to say something like "Uh, this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. We're talking about _____. Stay on topic."

Hannity, Coulter, and other RW nuts use similar tactics all the time. They think that manipulation such as this makes them a "great debater", because they are able to misdirect the subject at hand and "win" the argument when they get us on some moot point about Clinton or something else.

Incidentally, I wonder if Sean Hannity and other like him could even win an argument in a formal debate, where each side is allowed to speak their peace without the other side talking over them, and underhanded debate techniques, which Hannity uses all the time, are not allowed. I don't think so. Left without his ad hominem attacks on his opponent's patriotism and ability to confuse the issue with red herrings, Hannity and his ilk would be a fish out of water.

I thought that this was important enough to post because I've seen it a lot lately. It makes me livid every time I see it, and I think that we shouldn't allow it to happen anymore. If you can't win an argument or a debate without underhanded techniques and ad hominem attacks (in Hannity's case), you shouldn't argue or debate at all.
Ringo

[Redstone]

1. That's why I walk away whenever a rightwinger says the word "Clinton."

It's the Godwin's Law of the 21st century.

Redstone

[Ringo84]

2. Redstone

Maybe that's what we need to do. I think that this has become such a customary practice since 1998 that it's ingrained.

Can these people win arguments on the virtue of their point of view alone? I'm beginning to seriously doubt it. It's good to be on the left side of history.
Ringo

[Redstone]

5. Yup. "I'm not going to talk to you anymore, because for you, everything

ALWAYS ends up being Clinton's fault" is a damn good way to end a discussion.

(It's not a bad idea to mutter "loser" or "moron" as you walk away, either.)

Redstone

[blm]

3. Want to really shut them up - - - AGREE WITH THEM. Say, You're right, I

blame Clinton, too. Because 9-11 and this Iraq war would NOT have happened if he would have allowed IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate books to be opened completely so the depth of the BushInc policy of aiding and funding global terrorism along with his international financier cronies, could have been finally revealed to the citizens of this country and the world. People would have known how the Bushes and Bin Ladens were in league with arms dealers, drugrunners and moneylaunderers putting money and arms into the hands of terrorists.

Clinton closed the books on Bush then and this country and the rest of the world has paid dearly for it ever since.

Does anyone really think that Poppy Bush just woke up one day in the 90s and decided to STOP running arms and drugs and funding terrorists? He had been doing it for decades - he wasn't about to stop.

[Ringo84]

4. blm

Good strategy. I might try it sometime. It probably will shut them up. Hopefully, for good.
Ringo

[laundry_queen]

8. That is what I've done.

On a huge online discussion about the '04 election on a totally non-political site, the bushbots trotted that out as one of their first talking points (You know all the things Clinton coulda woulda shoulda done). I just said, "well, I don't care for him either. You know, come to think of it, hasn't he been hanging out a LOT with Poppy Bush lately? Wonder if he hangs out with George too? I bet they're great friends. Sorta like a family."
Never heard anything else about it and the conversation returned to the issues.
(Not saying Clinton and Bushes are the same, just that it neuters their Clenis arguments.)
Edited for typos.

[Ringo84]

13. laundry_queen

Good strategy! I like it.

In the same way, simply disagreeing with Coulter or not responding to her vitriol would likely throw her off guard. She expects a response - thrives on it. We ought to deny her the pleasure.
Ringo

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Dude that is so true

What I have noticed lately is they keep comparing Iraq to WWII. Common sense tells us that there is no comparison between the two. Yet, who would call WWII an unjust war? So it's okay to invade and occupy Iraq, since it is just like WWII.

It also helps their argument to note that Roosevelt was a Dem. And true conservative thinking classifies him as evil because of all the social programs he started. So it isn't at all a leap for them to argue that if we Dems think Iraq is unjust, then WWII was as well.

Have you noticed the latest hot item on their blogs is that Roosevelt planned the Pearl Harbor attack? It's all part of their plan to compare WWII and Iraq. Evil fuckheads.

[Ringo84]

11. proud2Blib

Smells like desperation to me.

I don't think these guys have very solid arguments for their actions. So they use the "Bill Clinton card" and make dumb comparisons like this. THEN they say that we're the one without a plan.
Ringo

[upi402]

7. Agreed. They've done this for years and Dems bite most of the time

It's very frustrating. It's like Dems are playing along or playing into it.

They also interrupt and shout over -drowning out facts that refute.

Dems fail to label as well. They say terms that will not sink in to the average American. They call them 'the opposition' or 'the majority'. They should blame the Republicans by name for their misdeeds.

Of course, the corporate media helps the Rethugs by squelching the liberal or cutting off time and the liberal never gets to make the point.

Stacking is another, huh? 3 conservatives against 1 liberal.

[Ringo84]

12. upi402

Exactly. I'm convinced that it's the only way they've "won" arguments/debates over the past ten-plus years. Like I said, I'm very skeptical of Hannity, Coulter, or other RW's debating skills. Unable to attack the other person for their views, they wouldn't have anything but easily disproven talking points.
Ringo

[Doctor_J]

9. What do you mean by "not let them get away with it"?

Andy Coulter was speaking to the TOday Show, the hosts of which are all wingers. I haven't a clue what you mean by "not let them get away with it", when no one from our side is ever present on the hate-fests.

[Ringo84]

14. TOJ

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is Matt Lauer really a winger? And Al Roker? I would honestly be surprised.

Well, maybe we can change the way we enter into a debate. Instead of getting angry at mAnn or Savage or other idiots, we could simply not respond to them, because they thrive on our angry response. And national Democrats could perhaps get a clue on dirty debate tactics and watch out for them the next time they go on FAUX.
Ringo

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Absolutely disgusting. What I find even more disturbing

is the fact that I've seen occasional DUers employing similar debating tactics. That made me doubly livid to see it coming from our own side.

This mode of discourse seems to be permeating our society at ever deeper levels. I don't see how this country can ever have a meaningful and intelligent debate about anything ever again. This will prove to be devestating as the depth of our national crisis becomes more apparent. In order to solve problems, you at least need to be able to discuss them rationally and civilly.

[Ringo84]

15. Crunchy Frog

I agree. Since we have opposed the overreaching, morally bankrupt policies of this regime and the RWers that support it, DUers have the moral high-road. When we lower ourselves to act like mAnn or Savage when we debate, however, we lose that moral high-road.

It seems as though political discourse is only getting worse. Perhaps I'm wrong, because I was a kid in the 90s (born in '84), but I don't remember the 90s being this bad - even with Clinton and the sex scandal. My Dad said once that Reagan had his supporters, but it was nothing like the "* is God's Right-Hand Man" stuff that you see today.

Have you been to a bookstore lately? It seems that half (or more) of the RW books you see on the shelf are vitriolic: "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". "Unhinged". "Let Freedom Ring - winning the war of liberty against liberals". A lot of this is coming from wingers! I'm not saying that liberals and Democrats don't engage in attacks also (I might be flamed for this, but I tend to think that Michael Moore is pretty extreme. No offense to any of his fans!), but the majority of this hatred comes from right-wingers. I'm trying to figure out (because I'm the kind of person who does this kind of analysis) the psychosociopolitical reasons behind that vitriol.

Just as much hate - or more - comes from Freeper Land. They are angry people. And what do they really have to be angry about? They've had * for six and a half years now. Republicans unfortunately dominate the Congress, the Senate, and the White House. What is there to be pissed about?

Sorry for going on a tangent. You inspired me to write down the concerns I've had about the state of discourse for a long time.
Ringo

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I don't recall the 70's or 80's being that way either

(Gosh I'm getting old). I think one of the biggest factors was the advent of RW talk/hate radio. For some reason, radio has long been a medium in which there are absolutely no limits, and people try to be as shocking and outrageous as they possibly can. The RW monopoly that existed there for a long time really whipped up the hatred and lowered the level of discourse.

There's been a tremendous change in the newsmedia in my lifetime too. I watched the new pretty obsessively during the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and it was nothing like what it is today. I stopped watching pretty much during the OJ Simpson trial and when I started watching again in 2000, I was shocked at how much it had deteriorated. I'm guess it was the consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a few mega-corporations, along with the influence of talk radio.

The RW pretty much controls the discourse in this country, and the only things that they really run on are hate, anger and fear, so they try to keep those emotions whipped up as much as possible. The corporate interests that run the media these days are all pretty much RW.

That's my thoughts on the matter.

[Ringo84]

17. Discourse

I agree - both with the thought that RW hate radio has contributed to our (as in, Americans') vitriolic discourse and that the RW fuels itself on hate and anger. I wonder if they really have anything but that.
Ringo