Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Paul Krugman has a great op-ed piece today in The New York Times entitled, The Politics of Spite, about the modern republican party and its opposition to anything and everything Obama's administration puts forward. From Chicago's Olympics bid to health care reform, the GOP's position "has all the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old." But then he brings up something that, as someone who was studying for her SATs at the same time as Congress was impeaching Clinton, I was only vaguely aware of:
I don't know if this comforts or scares me. The other day I was talking with my mom about what the difference might have been had Hillary Clinton become president instead; I think it might be worse. I think we would see the same irrationality and vitriol from the right, but instead of veiled racism, we'd see overt misogyny.
Back to the doctor for a follow-up appointment. All should be well.