Reply #22: All of it [View All]

[sangh0]

None of it true. It's a total distortion. And you repeat it:

I do, however, laud his genuine concern (which I do not detect amongst the "New Democrats") to dispel the specters of poverty and racism from this country

How did LBJ's "genuine concern" with racism lead him to defeat dozens of civil rights bills when hr was in the Senate?

ANd your ahistorical bias is obvious in your next comment:

That he presided over a widening gap between the rich and the poor, an ever-growing "defense" budget, Plan Columbia, preservation of Iraqi sanctions, an escalated drug war and burgeoning prison industry (part of that "law and order" theme), Welfare Reform, and NAFTA kinda puts me in a tizzy.

So LBJ's not fully funding the Great SOciety in order to continue the Viet Nam War is OK, but Clinton supported war (ie. increased military (no mention of LBJ's increasing military spending ), Plan Columbia (no mention of Viet Nam), Iraqi sanctions (ignoring the fact that it was imposed by the UN. NO, it's Always Blame Clinton), a drug war (as if LBJ was in favor of pot smoking), burgeoning prison industry (as if LBJ wasn't a law and order type. He was enthusiastic about arresting long-hairs), welfare reform (under Clinton we spent more on welfare per capita than we did under LBJ) and NAFAT (as if LBJ protected unions and labor)

Basically, if LBJ did it, it was OK. If Clinton did it, it was wrong, wrong, wrong.