The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.
That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.
The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.
1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions
Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.
But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.
The simple fact is, the Clintons were always much more lied about, than they did any lying.Ironically, you proved my point in the first sentence of your response.
Your lack of historical knowledge seems endless.
No more endless then that of someone who sees an R-NC avatar who says something vaguely similar to what a number of Republican/Conservative "idiots" say and therefore assumes said person must be ignorant. Try again, without trying to insult my intelligence.
Whether it is on discussions of the Civil War, the Evolution of the two parties, the difference between Hobbesian and Burkean Conservatism, the differences between Burkean Conservatism and Modern "movement" Conservatism, and many historical topics not related to politics such as military history in multiple conflicts, the Royal ancestries and their impact on European conflicts, the impact of economic conditions on historical events and periods, and many other historical topics, most of which I have posted at length about at one time or another; the notion that I am "ignorant of history" is in and of itself "ignorant", especially considering I started with History as my first passion, then jumped to economics, then to politics.
I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism' here but there are only three elected Presidents between Nixon and Clinton and 18 years. Even if you were correct that President Clinton brought back something not seen since Nixon, there was only 26 years between the time Nixon left office and George W Bush was elected. So, it's not like the political precedents would have been forgotten in that time.
It is not that it was first established with Nixon, but the political world made clear such was not acceptable when Nixon crossed so many lines in the name of "everybody else did it, why can't I". The danger of the Nixon precedent is right there and I would note that the President who attempted to rehabilitate Nixon was Clinton.
Presidents as celebrities...Ronald Reagan? I'm not referring even to his movies but that he was known as 'the great communicator.' You can check out his speeches if you don't think he realized how the power of his acting skills could help him as President. (Or as a candidate: "I paid for that microphone!")
An Actor who became a Governor and spent years becoming familiar with political matters over the course of almost 2 decades before running for President, who upon once becoming President acted in a Presidential manner befitting that of most previous Presidents, is not what I would consider demeaning the office to that of a common celebrity.
The difference is that Clinton was a politician who wanted to be a rock star and he acted like one. From screwing everything that moved, to lying under oath. The only parallel close to that was JFK.
I personally think the Reagan Administration got the two major issues of the day correct: dealing with inflation and with the Soviet Union/Gorbachev and, so, deserves to be regarded as a successful administration, but prior to Trump, the most corrupt Administration in history was the Reagan Administration.
The most corrupt administration prior to Trump? As worded, that is factual incorrect.
1. James Buchanan - Cabinet members actively conspired against the United States to assist the forming Confederacy. His administration also conspired with the Supreme Court in the lead up to the Dred Scott decision, violating the separation of powers in a fairly profound way.
2. Andrew Jackson - Ignored a Supreme Court ruling to carry out an ethnic clensing campaign against the Cherokee
3. Richard Nixon - Watergate being just the tip of the iceberg in a range of political dirty tricks that only got more outrageous and more illegal, all in the name of "well LBJ did it too".
I would certainly consider Reagan about equal with Grant in corruption and probably around 10 or so. Both had a lot of underlings engaged in criminal and illegal behavior. Trump seems on pace to be likewise, though obviously if he gets nailed for collusion that would boost him up above Nixon and possibly above Jackson.
Reducing objective facts to (partisan) opinions.
So, do you think ketchup is a vegetable?
Were 'welfare queens driving Cadillacs' ever really a drain on the budget?
Do trees really cause pollution?
I thought we were talking about lying about activities engaged in/crimes, not 4 Pinocchio campaign utterances and the momentary stupidity of Nancy Reagan. But nice job shifting the goal posts.
