Psh, I'll have to ask you which part of my chain of reasoning you disagree with.
Chain of reasoning? What chain of reasoning? I saw no chain of reasoning in your post. Oh, you mean these new arguments you are now adding? Okee dokee.
I argue:
no, you assert. Argument demands statements of fact, not assertions of rightness
1) The essence of American ideology being a government of laws not men,
Find and dandy, with you so far
those who specifically base their argument about the rightness of a politician on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart
And those folks would be? Where has that been asserted? By whom? Certainly not by me.
2) Many--not all--conservatives have begun making arguments on the rightness of Bush based on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart.
What arguments? I see no examples, sources, fact? Many, not all, liberals have been making arguments for decades that conservatives are evil, racist, hate mongers and liberals are good, caring and well intentioned. I see no evidence of either conclusion and can cite plenty of examples to prove the contrary case. First and foremost is the analysis by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (that well know right wing kook), that the liberal solutions to poverty and racism have destroyed the minority communities in this country. Given that well documented and reasoned position liberals still insist that conservatives opposition to those remedies are racists, and liberals blind devotion to those hateful solutions are enlightened and caring. Go figure!
Which part do you disagree with, (1) or (2)? After we establish that, we can argue whether I'm being McCarthyite or not.
Um, both? And McCarthyite tactics consist of blind accusations without any evidence, meant to attack and enemy and destroy them based on the accusation, sans proof. Seems like you've proven my case for me.
Again, I'd repeat what a wise Freeper wrote me about people here:
"I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better."
Ah, I see. Your evidence consists of a "freeper" who agrees with you and is therefore a wise freeper? Therefore anyone who disagrees is, by definition, unwise? Circular logic. You weren't educated by Jesuits, were you? There's this marvelous concept that they teach that revolves around logical discourse. You might like to look into it sometime.
As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?
Um, no? I guess you never actually READ the New York Times, either.
They were one of the most consistent voices saying that he wouldn't be able to survive the vicious attacks by right wing fanatics and that his minor peccadilloes (perjury, obstruction of justice, using the FBI, IRS and all of the levers of the Federal government to destroy his enemies) shouldn't be important given the overwhelming "good" that he was doing for the country. Of course, they never cited what that "good" really was. Can you? Not he helped, he fixed, he did. What actual actions, laws, executive orders, hirings or firings did he perform that helped anyone except himself? I never saw anything.
Um, no? I guess you never actually READ the New York Times, either.
Let's hop in the Wayback Machine and have a look, shall we?
March 25, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "THE PRESIDENCY AND THE WORLD":And so on. I can not find any editorial by the NYT editorial staff itself which advocates that Clinton resign. The closest I could find, other than columns by conservatives appearing in the NYTimes, was the following, by a *former* editor of the New York Times, A. M. Rosenthal, who formally retired from the NYT in 1988 (perhaps the last year the NYT had any integrity). The following is from his column expressing his *own* opinion, not the editorial opinion of the New York Times:[...] Yet America's freedoms and success are envied everywhere. Mr. Clinton carries that strength with him when he travels, and it magnifies both him and the office he occupies. It will not inoculate him from the problems that await his return to Washington, but at a moment of peril in his Administration Mr. Clinton is enjoying the radiance of the nation he represents. [...]August 03, 1998, NYT editorial by Thomas Friedman:[...] Clinton has got to say and do now what is necessary to put this case behind him -- in a way that might give at least some chance for him to pursue the progressive agenda, at home and abroad, for which he was elected. He owes that to all the people who believe in the social and economic programs for which he stood, and still might be able to salvage. He owes that to all the people who don't want to see an isolationist, mean-spirited Republican right shaping America's future. [...]September 30, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial:[...] This page advocates a negotiated settlement that would allow Mr. Clinton to remain in office in exchange for a censure based on his admission of lying under oath. [...]December 18, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "War at Home and Abroad":[...] The clearest thinking in the Republican Party is coming from two New Yorkers, Representatives Amo Houghton and Peter King. Yesterday they introduced a censure resolution noting that Mr. Clinton "lied under oath."December 20, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "Impeachment and Beyond":[...] Yet, with both the White House and the majority party in Congress locked in a crisis of leadership, one element remained unchanged. The way back to stability is adoption of a censure resolution that condemns Mr. Clinton for lying under oath, but allows him to remain in office. [...]January 6, 1999, unsigned NYT editorial, "Avoiding a Lengthy Trial":[...] The reason is that some influential Republicans are blocking the plan of their majority leader, Trent Lott, to move the Senate with appropriate speed toward a censure verdict that conforms with the public will, the evidence against Mr. Clinton and the national interest. [...] The senators need to be bigger than Mr. Clinton has been, too. So far Mr. Lott, the minority leader, Tom Daschle, and their pro-censure allies have measured up. [...]
December 18, 1998 column by A. M. Rosenthal, "On My Mind: What Clinton Can Do:[...Bill Clinton has one great service he can offer to his country, only one now -- swift resignation. Democratic leaders, and his true friends out of government, owe it to him to urge him to resign, in the critical interest of all Americans, particularly those he is sending into action. [...] I do not think the President has the courage to resign. But we must say aloud what we think our leaders should do, not duck behind platitudes [...]