I’m not going to re-litigate the Clinton controversies seriatim. Unfortunately far fewer opinion polls back then sorted responses by party and ideology, but I found one which, while not exactly on point, is close enough. It showed that while 72% of Democrats disapproved of how the House was investigating Clinton, 52% thought he should be censured, impeached or should resign. CNN/Time Poll, October 14-15, 1998. I’m long past believing you can be convinced by evidence that contradicts your biases, so I’ll just let anyone else who’s still interested decide for themselves whether that 52% is more or less than “a few pro-forma condemnations.”

neurodoc: Your response first to Richard Aubrey, then to Ryan Waxx suggest that you don’t think there were a non-negligible number of Clinton apologists who tried either to deny the evidence or minimize their misconduct.

My comment to Ryan was that his was a straw man. I never denied what he said, and though I don’t recall the NOW details, I don’t doubt them. And I criticized Richard’s comment not because it’s entirely false, but because it’s so sweeping, neither is it true. (That it’s so much broader than what Ryan said is why Ryan’s comment to me was non-responsive.)

So no, there were certainly non-negligable numbers who denied Clinton did anything wrong. I said “few,” which is vague, but to be clear all I had in mind was that most didn’t deny it. The exact numbers or proportions were immaterial to why I brought Clinton up in the first place. It was only to illustrate to Laura why I found her “piling on” excuse for not criticizing Palin unpersuasive. In fact, I reject that excuse because I don’t believe partisan interests justify dishonesty, but I wasn’t trying to make the normative argument, just a prudential one. So I pointed out that most of Clinton’s supporters were critical of his behavior, while still defending him from his attackers, and that the judgment of the American people as evidenced in his high job approval ratings suggests the internal criticism wasn’t terribly damaging politically.

Leo Marvin: Ryan, let me know if you any non-straw man arguments you’d like me to respond to.

Your response first to Richard Aubrey, then to Ryan Waxx suggest that you don’t think there were a non-negligible number of Clinton apologists who tried either to deny the evidence or minimize their misconduct. Is that the implication of your responses to them, in particular with regard to the tolerance of his misconduct by many feminists? The partisan fury of their opponents may have been more consequential, but there were those unabashed apologists. (BTW, did anyone ever figure out how the missing Rose billing records showed up in the WH living quarters?)

Leo Marvin: Richard, I don’t doubt that’s exactly how you remember it.

Yes Leo, I’m certain that there is no one who sought to minimize something Clinton did after it was proven he did so. For example, I happen to know that NOW has never criticized a CEO for having sex with one of his subordinates. No, really!

NickM: Leo — there’s 2 different types of politically toxic actions:those that come across as really stupid (including taking extremist positions), and those that come across as nasty/venal (including criminality).
The first type (which I think is what you’re indicating Palin has done) is a lot easier for supporters to live with — after all, it doesn’t make her a bad person.Grayson seems to me to be the second type.Nick

I agree about Grayson and mostly about Palin, though Walt Monegan and those who live outside “the real America” might have something to say about that.

Nick

Laura(southernxyl): Leo, look at your original statement. [snip my comment]
In other words, “Sarah Palin” is shorthand for stupidity that you would think would alienate a politician from friends and foes alike.Now you’re fleshing your argument out, but that doesn’t negate the fact that your original statement was a cheap drive-by.

Laura, please stop telling me what I want, believe, and now intend. First, if you’re going to quote me, show the relevant context, in this case neurodoc’s comment to which I responded. He and I were both referring to behavior one would expect to be politically toxic. I mentioned Sarah Palin as a counter-example of highly partisan politicians whose supporters refuse to criticize such behavior because they care more about a unified front than they do the consistency of their principles. But even if for whatever reason you read that differently, I’ve told you three times what I meant. So if you’re going to challenge my honesty, please back it up with more than just your own interpretation.

You’re going to tell me that Clinton’s supporters didn’t excuse his behavior?

I’m sure you can find some who did, but by and large, no, they didn’t.

I didn’t hear “it was just about sex” over and over?About how the Republicans were crucifying him over a little sexual dalliance that was no one’s business?I still don’t hear these things?Please.

You’re conflating how Democrats responded to attacks on Clinton with what they said about his behavior. The campaign to vilify Clinton, of which the impeachment was the most egregious chapter, was a disgrace, unjustified by anything he did. But that doesn’t make what he did right, and most Democrats said so. You’d have to be willfully blind to think Clinton wasn’t widely criticized by Democrats, even while they found the behavior of his enemies worse.

I tend to agree. You’d think anything this stupid would alienate him from friends and foes alike. The counter-argument, of course, is Sarah Palin.

In other words, “Sarah Palin” is shorthand for stupidity that you would think would alienate a politician from friends and foes alike. Now you’re fleshing your argument out, but that doesn’t negate the fact that your original statement was a cheap drive-by.

You’re going to tell me that Clinton’s supporters didn’t excuse his behavior? I didn’t hear “it was just about sex” over and over? About how the Republicans were crucifying him over a little sexual dalliance that was no one’s business? I still don’t hear these things? Please.

Laura(southernxyl): Leo, why Palin?Is she really the only example you can think of, of a politician who’s done some things you regard as stupid, who is also popular?

As I explained, my comment wasn’t about Palin so much as it was about some of her supporters, and their left-wing counterparts who Sarcastro predicted will circle the wagons around Grayson. Since the OP was about Grayson, I think it was reasonable to use a right-wing example to illustrate something about both sides. Why Palin’s? Hers was the first one that came to mind.

I think it’s very ironic that on the one hand you hear “Palin lies!” all over the place, and on the other, people casually drop lies about her at random moments, when neither she nor that particular lie is even relevant to the discussion.

I’ve never said anything about Palin more critical than what’s been said by Davids Brooks, Frum, Bernstein and Nieporent, lefties all. So what does your irony have to do with what I did say?

Since you don’t want to think about what you are accomplishing with your little backhand slaps at Palin, I’ll spell it out:People on her side, who would otherwise be judiciously critical of her shortcomings, can’t do it now because they would be piling on.

What are you trying to accomplish by claiming to know what I want or think? More important, you’re making my argument. You’ll probably disagree, but I think the Clintons were attacked more viciously than the Palins have been. Yet though his behavior didn’t justify his enemies’ tactics, few of Bill’s supporters shied away from saying what he did was wrong. And the American people still came down on his side. So I’m not persuaded that for Palin’s partisans to criticize their own would be piling on. And even if they can’t bring themselves to say what they think, they don’t have to defend what they know deserves criticism just because they don’t like their opponents. That’s the sort of intellectual dishonesty that turns arguments into feuds. Which was my point.

Their criticism now can’t be constructive because you’ve moved the conversation so far into the destructive zone that it can’t come back.

How have I “moved the conversation so far into the destructive zone that it can’t come back?”

Just like the “ear leader” crap, this absolutely leads straight to polarization instead of shared goals and productive conversation.Is that what you want?I don’t know, maybe it is.

Laura, I used blind, partisan support for Palin to illustrate a point about blind partisanship on both sides. How you can equate that with “ear leader” is beyond me. Are you suggesting that because some people went over the top attacking Palin, she’s now off limits to legitimate criticism? If bad arguments can drive out good ones, the bad ones are all that’s left.

I’ve given that a lot of thought, thanks. I think it’s very ironic that on the one hand you hear “Palin lies!” all over the place, and on the other, people casually drop lies about her at random moments, when neither she nor that particular lie is even relevant to the discussion. See here for instance.

Since you don’t want to think about what you are accomplishing with your little backhand slaps at Palin, I’ll spell it out: People on her side, who would otherwise be judiciously critical of her shortcomings, can’t do it now because they would be piling on. Their criticism now can’t be constructive because you’ve moved the conversation so far into the destructive zone that it can’t come back. Just like the “ear leader” crap, this absolutely leads straight to polarization instead of shared goals and productive conversation. Is that what you want? I don’t know, maybe it is.

Laura(southernxyl):
No, it’s not.You’re saying that Palin is the counterexample to the supposition one would have that stupidity would alienate people; in a thread that is not about her at all.That is a gratuitous swipe.It’s only millimeters away from “Ear Leader” and “Obamination”.

Laura, the “stupidity” I referred to was what Grayson did, not Grayson himself. So my counter-example was (how Palin supporters have reacted to) some stupid things Palin has done, not an implication that she herself is stupid. If you’re saying it’s controversial to suggest that Palin, or any other politician for that matter, has done stupid things, I disagree. And if you believe it’s comparable to stuff like “Ear Leader,” I’d urge you to give that a little more thought.

Larger point w/r/t some Democrats: Obama did a bit of this during the election. He had a bunch of people in Missouri – prosecutors, police officers, etc – who were advised to be a “truth squad.” He spent a bunch of money airing a commercial that attacked a private citizen (Gianna Jessen) for her commercial which only urged him to reconsider his position on the BAIPA. Pathetic, really.

Larger point as to why conservatives are howling: after eight years of listening to “BusHitler” (and similar rhetoric), when a member of the opposing side does something that actually violates the Constitution of the United States, it’s very tempting to match the vitriol thrown at our side for possible, alleged, or hypothetical violations of the Constitution.

I doubt whether I agree with her on even half of the issues, but she has always struck me as a professional, and more decent and honest than most journalists.

Leo Marvin: Laura, it’s not a gratuitous dig at Sarah Palin. It’s a comment on the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” state of our politics.

No, it’s not. You’re saying that Palin is the counterexample to the supposition one would have that stupidity would alienate people; in a thread that is not about her at all. That is a gratuitous swipe. It’s only millimeters away from “Ear Leader” and “Obamination”. Again, what do you imagine you are accomplishing when you do this, and is it anything you want to accomplish?

As to Sarcastro’s comment, a “lack of political calculation”, which some may find refreshingly honest, is NOT the same as “stupidity”.

Palin is indeed a good counterexample for the idea that lack of political calculation in one's actions (i.e. "acting stupidly") does not alienate someone. The political and the personal are often quite seperate.

And, in both the Grayson and Palin cases, a hefty does or populism doesn't hurt either.

Though I fervently hope so, I doubt we've seen the last of Grayson. In fact, I'll bet his popularity among the left wing goes up.]

Leo Marvin: I tend to agree. You’d think anything this stupid would alienate him from friends and foes alike. The counter-argument, of course, is Sarah Palin.

Leo, what do you imagine you are accomplishing with this kind of gratuitous dig at SP? If you really think about it, is it anything you want to accomplish?

Alder’s a hypocrite for talking about this incident, but not a similar incident involving a conservative.

BUT, Mike’s not a hypocrite for doing the exact same thing in reverse.

And anyone who thinks that logic pattern is wrong needs mental help.

Do I have your reasoning correct so far, Mike?

Turns out they appear to have been doing something that would get you or me tossed in jail… but since they fell under a “press exemption”, the illegal behavior becomes legal. Surprise!

Yes, CLEARLY a bad-faith effort by the repubs…
/sarc

Ryan Waxx: So, if the subject is hypocrisy, lets see… there’s NOTHING on the “crime and federalism” site about this incident… which of course just shocks anyone who knows how balanced liberals are… 
… And wonder of wonders, I do not see Mike or Rjs on that site lambasting the liberal for ignoring Rep. Grayson! Will ya look at that!

Dude, you are mentally unbalanced. The Crime & Federalism site is mine. I am not even remotely liberal. I didn’t even know about the Rep. Grayson thing until reading the VC this a.m.

Get back on those meds. Or maybe take some Adderall when cruising the web – helps with reading comprehension.

Whatever you do, start over. You’ve obviously failed at life, and lack the ability to judge persons and situations. Go to a bookstore. Find the psychology section. Start reading books on body language…Talk to people. Ask questions. You’re not nearly as perceptive as you think, and thus have much more to learn from others than you have to teach others.

neurodoc: INAPC (I’m not a political consultant), but this looks like a very ill-advised move to me.

I tend to agree. You’d think anything this stupid would alienate him from friends and foes alike. The counter-argument, of course, is Sarah Palin.

Mike: Kazinski: Show us an instance of a conservative republican sending a letter to the US AG demanding a critic be sent to jail for 5 years, and then we can rip Juan for having a double standard.

This has nothing to do with Adler. But, yes, the GOP pulled a similar stunt in 2004.

So, if the subject is hypocrisy, lets see… there’s NOTHING on the “crime and federalism” site about this incident… which of course just shocks anyone who knows how balanced liberals are…

… And wonder of wonders, I do not see Mike or Rjs on that site lambasting the liberal for ignoring Rep. Grayson! Will ya look at that!

You proved something… although I don’t think it’s what you WANTED to prove.