Which of them is more unpresidential and why - the Clintonism or the Bushism?
Obama does the "is is" thing too. :yuck:
And McCain does the "never wrong" (or is he never wrong)?
I'm not sure I've heard the "never wrong" one - could you post the full quote?
I put it in partial quotes because I could not find the direct source. I recall that Bush said in a press conference to the effect that he could not remember making a mistake. I'm sure many folks out there could provide a reference.
Try http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html" [Broken] for one example:
Russ was asking you to post where McCain said this, not Bush.
Clintonism, Bushism, Democrats, Republicans, Obama, McCain, what an incredible charade. Clearly the American people vote for the president and political leaders it deserves.
I was attempting humor by reflecting on what Gokul43201 wrote. I hoped it was apparent in the thread overall. As Obama, so McCain (with a double negative, to boot).
No, I didn't - the OP calls it a "bushism", so I assumed it was Bush who said it.
In any case, if that's all that it's based on, then the premise of the thread is a complete false-dichotomy. The Clintonism "is is" is an actual quote. The "bushism" is at best a paraphrase, but in the quote posted, it doesn't look to me like it is an accurate one.
But then, I guess that makes the answer to the OP's question easy: the Clintonism is much worse. But that's mainly just because he actually said it. If a person actually ever said 'I'm never wrong', then it'd be a toss-up.
Ooops, since you asked that immediately after the claim that McCain said it, I thought you were referring to McCain.
Oops here too! It just struck me what "is is" thing Loren was refering to (only after reading Russ' last post). I was refering to a completely unrelated "is is" by Obama - a grammatical "yuck", not a connotative one.
Example: But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives.
See, this is why I think people need to be more explicit about their points. Even though Clinton's "is is" is a well-known quote, in order to properly discuss it, we need to read the actual quote. And that goes double for the paraphrased bushism.
I wouldn't want either of them teaching "ethics" to my kids, if I had any.
I couldn't say. They're pretty close. The thing is that Clinton was not only attempting so say he was not wrong he also gives the impression that side stepping the truth by creative or overly literal interpretation of a question is just normal operating procedure.
So to my mind we have arrogant or arrogant in defense of dishonesty. Without taking into regard the magnitude of the context I would have to say Clinton is worse.
But Bush was arrogant in playing politics while I believe Clinton was only be arrogant in defense of his personal privacy, so I rate Bush's quote as the worst. I rate lack of humility as more serious when compared to the other sins in the bible such as dishonesty. Grant it none of us is free from making mistakes and Clinton never said he was.
Depends on whether you learned your grammar.
That's why I made sure to say 'without regard to context'. It changes in that light but what the 'comments' indicate in and of themselves is fairly equal. The thing is that Clinton shows both dishonesty and lack of humility.
Show me where Clinton showed a lack of humility when it came to politics. There never have been so many attempts to shut out those who might disagree from the decision making process as in the Bush administration. The "is is" quote can be attributed simply to the courtroom theatrics where a defendant takes every technicality available to evade answering a question while under oath. It wasn't dishonest, if it was Clinton would have been found guilty of perjury but he wasn't. It certainly wasn't a lack of humility that caused Clinton to evade the question either.
He was found guilty and debarred for it. It may have been theatrics to some extent but abuse of power is abuse of power. It showed, although in a sensationalistic fashion, that Clinton had no qualms with taking advantage of his position for unethical purposes. And his defense of his dishonesty, in my opinion, shows his lack of humility. He could have easily said "Yes I evaded the question because I didn't think it was any of this person's business" but he didn't.
And yes nailing an intern is unethical (morality is nothing I care to argue). If a McDonalds manager had sex with a subordinate he would be fired and I see no reason why the President of the United States of America should be held to less of a standard than McDonalds employees.
If you want to get into dishonesty over politics with Clinton then we should probably start discussing the definition of the term "genecide".
Clinton is an *** and Bush is a boob. The biggest difference between their arrogance is the 'context'.
As for agreeing that he evaded the question in his deposition, that wasn't the question. The question was whether his answer in the deposition was a lie and whether he should be impreached. Obviously, people had different views on this issue. Even if he was disbarred, enough people considered that it was not a lie or was not serious enough that he should be impreach. If the CEO of McDonalds was found to have committed adultory, he would be humbled and admitit as did Clinton (Finally), but he wouldn't step down from his position.
I thought the issue was a "lack of humility" which is a lot more serious than dishonesty. Those who lack humility are not willing to listen to those who disagree with you because they consider themselves superior. I never found Clinton to exhibit a lack of humility.
I've been too sloppy lately. Apparently the original source where I read that lacked some detail...
So he made sure to avoid potential disbarment.
Separate names with a comma.