T1B

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:With perhaps the meanest campaign literature ever,

Oh please...

Word, not even close.

He has a valid point

mvscal wrote:Much like everything else in American life, politics has become pussified.

Rough campaign literature? You mean like Henry Clay running "Yo Momma a Ho" smack at Andrew Jackson?

Or a US Senator getting beaten into a coma on the floor of the House by a Congressman?

Or a Vice President murdering a former Treasury Secretary in a duel over aspersions cast on his integrity?

How about George H. W. Bush suggesting that Michael Dukakis intended to release convicted murderers for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian populace?

Or Saxby Chambliss morphing Max Cleland's image into that of Osama bin Laden?

If you look at modern-day political campaigns and compare them to campaigns of, oh, say, a generation or two ago, "pussified" will not be the first word that comes to mind.

Still, you have a point when you say that politics is not as rough-and-tumble as it was in the early days of this country's history. Do you think we'd be better off if we go back to that approach?

I'll take your answer off the air.

Jsc810 wrote: Today, do we really want politicians dueling with pistols, fist fighting, or calling their opponent's mother a whore?

Not only would it be entertaining but would also get rid of a few of them.

First, a cage match - the Flying Kennedys vs. the Bush-wackers

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:OK, maybe not the "meanest ever", but still, that is prety rough.

Actually it's a perfectly valid point.

Much like everything else in American life, politics has become pussified.

Rough campaign literature? You mean like Henry Clay running "Yo Momma a Ho" smack at Andrew Jackson?

Or a US Senator getting beaten into a coma on the floor of the House by a Congressman?

Or a Vice President murdering a former Treasury Secretary in a duel over aspersions cast on his integrity?

Just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to 19th century American politics.

That being said, Terry is right that the relatively tame post WWII political landscape has morphed into something far more akin to the 1800s as we move into the 21st century.

BTW: As I recall, it was John Quincy Adams who ran "Yo bitch is a ho" smack at Jackson. He accused her of being a bigamist. Jackson blamed Adams for her subsequent death.

mvscal wrote: I believe he became Adams' Sec. of State.

Yep. That was the big scandal. That was the election decided by congress. Jackson won the popular vote and had the most Electoral votes, but not a majority (It was a 4 man race). Thus throwing the vote to Congress. Clay then gave his support to Adams and Adams became Pres. Right after that Adams named Clay Sec State and killed his presidency right out of the gates.

mvscal wrote:It was Henry Clay in response to Jackson calling Adams a pimp. He was working for the Adams campaign. I believe he became Adams' Sec. of State.

OK, I was thinking about the election of 1828, not 1824. It's damn hard work keeping the Jackson, Clay, Adams soap opera straight.

Politics now is a pussy sport.


Election of 1828

The campaign was the first true mud-slinging contest. Adams was accused of misusing public funds—he had supposedly purchased gambling devices for the presidential residence; actually he had simply bought a chessboard and a pool table. The charges against Jackson were much more malicious. He was accused of murder for executing militia deserters and dueling. In addition, he and his wife were accused of adultery. Rachel was a divorcee'; she and Jackson believed her divorce was finalized before their marriage. The papers were incomplete, however, and she was publicly branded an adulteress by Jackson’s political opponents. Mrs. Jackson was humiliated, became ill and died before the inauguration. Jackson believed these attacks caused his wife’s death and said, “May God Almighty forgive her murderers as I know she forgave them. I never can.”

Why put the added anxiety on the ticker that goes w/the territory of representing the populace???

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Do you think we'd be better off if we go back to that approach?

I'll take your answer off the air.

Oh, fuck yeah.

Disagree.

One of the real disgraces of our system is that so few eligible voters bother to vote. We barely get 50% voter turnout in a Presidential election year, and significantly less than that in so-called "off" years. The mud-slinging that goes on now, while perhaps tame by standards of the first century of this Republic, is a major factor behind the low voter turnout.

BSmack wrote:That being said, Terry is right that the relatively tame post WWII political landscape has morphed into something far more akin to the 1800s as we move into the 21st century.

Without a doubt, the media also has played a role in this.

Harry Truman filed bankruptcy before he became President. That would probably disqualify someone from the Presidency today, even though bankruptcy today is far more common and far less stigmatized than it was when Truman went through it. I'm not sure if the media didn't know this about Truman, or knew it but thought it not newsworthy information.

And remember how breathlessly, and relentlessly, the media reported Bill Clinton's extracurricular love life? Strictly minor-league compared to JFK's, of course (imagine Clinton banging Pamela Anderson and you'd have a rough comparison to JFK and Marilyn), but nobody knew about JFK's affairs until years after he died. And from reading Ben Bradlee's autobiography, it's quite clear that the media knew all about it at the time, but didn't consider it newsworthy.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Do you think we'd be better off if we go back to that approach?

I'll take your answer off the air.

Oh, fuck yeah.

Disagree.

One of the real disgraces of our system is that so few eligible voters bother to vote. We barely get 50% voter turnout in a Presidential election year, and significantly less than that in so-called "off" years. The mud-slinging that goes on now, while perhaps tame by standards of the first century of this Republic, is a major factor behind the low voter turnout.

Voter turnout wasn't an issue in 1828. Hell, less than 1 in 4 of the people in this country were even eligible to vote back then. Maybe if we told more people they couldn't vote, then they would value the franchise more dearly.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: One of the real disgraces of our system is that so few eligible voters bother to vote. We barely get 50% voter turnout in a Presidential election year,

That isn't a bad thing. The vast, overwhelming majority of people are too fucking stupid to be voting anyway.

word-------

founding fathers

Terry in Crapchester wrote: And remember how breathlessly, and relentlessly, the media reported Bill Clinton's extracurricular love life? Strictly minor-league compared to JFK's, of course (imagine Clinton banging Pamela Anderson and you'd have a rough comparison to JFK and Marilyn), but nobody knew about JFK's affairs until years after he died. And from reading Ben Bradlee's autobiography, it's quite clear that the media knew all about it at the time, but didn't consider it newsworthy.

Perhaps the number of females in the WH press corp had something to do with that.

nah, it's just that the press corp had some sense of doing the right thing for the country. pointing out that jfk was putting the wood to mm woudn't have done the country any good. they just looked at it for what it was. some rich powerful dude nailing a hottie.

comparing this with the willy/monica debacle is apples/oranges. he was already up on harassment charges. he lied. and also, he was nailing a 21 yo kid that worked for him. mm was a middle aged successful star that had her pick of guys. if clinton had tagged someone like pam anderson, I might have voted for him.

as for this case, i think that bringing up one's serious likelyhood of not being around to finish a term is legitimate.

BSmack wrote:As I recall, it was John Quincy Adams who ran "Yo bitch is a ho" smack at Jackson.

You were around then?!? Damn, I don't feel so old now.

smackaholic wrote:nah, it's just that the press corp had some sense of doing the right thing for the country. pointing out that jfk was putting the wood to mm woudn't have done the country any good. they just looked at it for what it was. some rich powerful dude nailing a hottie.

comparing this with the willy/monica debacle is apples/oranges. he was already up on harassment charges. he lied. and also, he was nailing a 21 yo kid that worked for him. mm was a middle aged successful star that had her pick of guys. if clinton had tagged someone like pam anderson, I might have voted for him.

Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story, now does it?

Not only was JFK laying the pipe to Marilyn, but he passed her off to his brother once he got bored with her. And all the while, his good friend Frank Sinatra was essentially treating her like a high-priced call girl, although in fairness, that's not on JFK. Shortly thereafter, Marilyn dies under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Now, I'm not saying that JFK had her killed, and in fact I don't believe that for a second. But it's not an unreasonable conclusion that Marilyn was probably clinically depressed, albeit not diagnosed as such, at the time she died, that her depression had a hand in her death, and that her treatment by JFK had something to do with her depression. But in any event, you're only kidding yourself if you think the media wouldn't report a similar story today involving the President.

Nor, for that matter, was Marilyn JFK's one and only. Among the others was Judith Exner, who was simultaneously the girlfriend of a fairly high-ranking mob boss. All of this was also going on at the same time that JFK's Justice Department, headed by his brother, was going to war against organized crime. Throw in the fact that there's one school of thought that believes that JFK's assassination was a mob hit, and the possibility arises that Exner was double dealing between JFK and the mob.

By contrast, let's look at Monica and Bill. Yes, you're correct that Monica was 21 and working for him at the time, but you neglected to mention that by Monica's own account, she was initally the aggressor. And while 21 is considerably younger than Clinton was at the time, the law recognizes a substantial difference between 21 and, say, 16. Further, an affair that was concededly consensual is of questionable relevance, to put it mildly, with respect to a sexual harassment lawsuit. And Clinton was dogged by these types of rumors dating back to even before he became President (remember Gennifer Flowers very nearly derailing his candidacy during the primary season in '92?). If I knew nothing about American history and believed everything I heard from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, I would have concluded that no U.S. President before Clinton had ever had an extramarital affair. And while Clinton did lie about his sex life, JFK, by contrast, was never placed in a position where he had to answer questions about his sex life, at least not in public.

You're right about one thing, although not in the manner you believe: comparing Clinton's sex life to JFK's is comparing apples to oranges. No matter how you slice it, JFK's sex life was far more sordid than Clinton ever imagined his being in his wildest dreams. Compared to JFK, Clinton was strictly a minor-leaguer when it came to philandering.