> I believe that it was under GWB that the stonewalling through threatened filibusters, and refusal to fill judicial appointments, really heated up.
The Clinton presidency was full of pettiness, the Republican congress following their 1994 popularity wave were intent on destroying his two terms utterly, just because.
I was ready to listen to your argument, except that (A) you haven't provided any concrete examples of this pettiness, and (B) your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated.
For one example, the House Republicans impeached President Clinton over a blowjob after a years-long fishing expedition that failed to turn up any actual misconduct.
> your "just because" comment shows me that your mind isn't open to the possibility that there could be rational policy objections that really need to be debated.
I'm fully open to this idea, but have not managed to find any, let alone any which would justify the level of dogged pursuit and of dismissal of concerns the Republican congress put the Clinton presidency through: Ken Starr (an unusually fervent Republican to handle a case possibly involving a Democratic president), initially appointed for the Whitewater investigation, expanded it in a broadside, anything goes investigation into anything which could touch the president. The Clinton presidency is also — as far as I know — the first one since Watergate for which many potential issues were quickly labelled -gates: Whitewatergate, Nannygate, Filegate, Travelgate, and of course the various callings of the Lewkinsky affair (monicagate, lewkinskygate, tailgate, zippergate, sexgate)
If you have policy-based justifications for these, I'm interested though not exactly hopeful.
The Clinton presidency was full of pettiness, the Republican congress following their 1994 popularity wave were intent on destroying his two terms utterly, just because.