quick question about this Pres. admin.

[Corporate Thug]

i'm pretty young. the only administration that i recall other than this one is the Clinton admin and I remember the Bush Sr admin a little as well. Has any other admin received has much public resistance as this one?

 

[Steeplerot]

reagan had major static also, the media shows him as loved by everyone nowdays, but if you go into alleyways not painted over you can still see reagan=nazi remarks. (swazis on his forehead on any picture of him in public were also very popular)

But nothing like this one, bush has hit a all time low from what I have seen in my lifetime for dividing americans.

regan was probaly worse, but people had no means to express how outraged they are like the net nowdays.

bush sr. was not all that hated but still gathered millions of protests over the war.

clinton didnt start any dirty wars but plenty of outcry over his bj in the media.

nixon is still despised on a whole, except by a few hardline vietnam apologists and old mccarthy era commie scare types, and carter still gets laughed at for a number of reasons.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

America always seems to be fairly well divided over whatever administration is in charge at the time. I date back to Reagan. As I recall most peolple liked him. His approval ratings were usually high. He won both of his elections by landslides, both in the electoral and popular votes. The libs hated him with a passion but the average american loved him. He had his share of scandals but no more than most administrations before him. His popularity was strong enough to put the first Bush in office.

Bush 41 rode that wave but couldn't maintain the momentum. He so pissed off his base that many conservatives bolted for Perot who was running on his own third party ticket. Clinton benefitted from this by only needing 43% to win the election in '92.

The Clinton Admin was interesting. It was swamped with scandal almost from day 1. While he had consistantly high approval ratings he never managed to win a majority in either of his elections instead winning by 43% and 49% pluralities and failed to get his VP elected... losing to a guy who couldn't spit out a speech if his life depended on it.

And now there is Dubbya. And we all have our opinions on him one way or the other.

 

[irwincur]

People hated Reagan - the media did as well. Pretty much whenever a Conservative is in office the media goes into 'hate' mode. Ever since they got the taste of blood with Nixon the lefties in the press have been clawing away. Bush Sr. was somewhat of an anomoly because he was hardly Conservative. However, the media did butcher him (no new taxes) because the young liberal upstart Clinton needed a chance. The only reason the press finally went after Clinton was because there was too much going on to ignore. Trust me, they tried their hardest to ignore it for five years. I have a feeling we have yet to hear most of it (able danger anyone...).

In short, this is nothing new. When the media leans 75% hard left this is too be expected. Your teachers also lean about 75% left also, so you are really never getting a good unbiased view of the world. Until of course you leave school and are allowed to enter the real world.

Is it a coincidence that most people begin turning more Conservative at about the age 25...

 

[nageov3t]

coincidence? no.

made up factoid? probably.

 

[Harvey]

Nixon was the worst until this administration. For reference, see John Dean's book, Worse Than Watergate. He should know. He was Nixon's Whitehouse counsel, famous for telling Nixon there was "a cancer on the presidency."

Preface

George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences. Their secrecy is extreme?not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive. It has created a White House that hides its president's weaknesses as well as its vice president's strengths.

It has given us a presidency that operates on hidden agendas. To protect their secrets, Bush and Cheney dissemble as a matter of policy. In fact, the Bush-Cheney presidency is strikingly Nixonian, only with regard to secrecy far worse (and no one will ever successfully accuse me of being a Nixon apologist). Dick Cheney, who runs his own secret governmental operations, openly declares that he wants to turn the clock back to the pre-Watergate years?a time of an unaccountable and extraconstitutional imperial presidency. To say that their secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement.

I'm anything but skittish about government, but I must say this administration is truly scary and,given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous. This conclusion is not that of a political partisan, for those days are long behind me; rather, it is the finding of a concerned observer, with something of a distinct understanding and appreciation of the modern presidency.
.
.
(continues)

This was written before the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative and other recent events.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The only reason the press finally went after Clinton was because there was too much going on to ignore. Trust me, they tried their hardest to ignore it for five years. I have a feeling we have yet to hear most of it (able danger anyone...).

A big liberal media conspiricy, eh? Somehow, I don't think I'll be trusting you for much.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Didn't an FBI agent whistleblow and resign because she was on to one of the 9/11 hijackers? He was taking flying lessons and didn't bother learning how to land or takeoff.

Coleen Rowley

The FBI wasn't going to use any information it already had.