Talk:Vast right-wing conspiracy
|WikiProject Conservatism||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class)|
What/who is this term referring to? Its used a couple times in the article as a nebulous entity. Is there a better way to say this? If not, it seems to not be needed. 22.214.171.124 08:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Referring to us, baby. Better watch your back; our Right-Wing Ninjas will come for you. :p Rogue 9 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dittos. There doesn't seem to be any reference to the secret decoder wheels. I got one. Did you? ;-) Jlambert 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Conservative Media" refers to media that is conservative...don't see how it could be any more clear. --Tim4christ17 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This section is not NPOV, it only shows one side of the issue. The Ken Starr investigation did not discredit the notion of a "conspiracy" as there were many prior attempts to smear the Clintons that turned out to be baseless. There are commentators on the Left who have stated that, for all intents and purposes, her statement was correct. --George100 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Very true, I cleaned it up some. C56C 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are numerous commentators on the Left who have supported Hillary Clinton's claim. Of course, that doesn't make her claim any more accurate. One could just as readily point out the numerous commentators on the Right who think she was just pounding the pavement for sympathy points. Corrected for MASSIVE errors --- the preceding version couldn't possibly have been written by anyone who'd done research beyond surfing a few blogs. SOURCE material, people...go to the SOURCE, not to the OPINIONS. Calbeck 16 March 2007
How does Richard Mellon Scaife financing conservative groups and causes validate the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"? I mean, by that logic, there most definately is a "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy". I mean, George Soros makes Scaife look like an amateur when it comes to throwing scads of money at political groups. Soros dedictated himself to ousting a sitting president, for pete's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- The difference in this case is that Soros used his money to fund legitimate political groups during an election while Scaife bankrolled various investigations to dig up unrelated sleaze right from the start of Clinton's presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:08, March 19, 2007
This article is badly misguided
This article is badly misguided. "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is not a real thing, but rather a famous phrase uttered by someone. It's worthy of an article, but the article should just discuss the phrase, who said, reactions to it regarding its appropriateness and validity, and its use in the media and language and popular culture. But in addition to this, the article delves into the details of various Clinton administration controversies, duplicating and sometimes even going into greater detail than the actual articles on those controversies - Whitewater (controversy), Troopergate, Paula Jones, etc. Then the article debates some of these controversies - also inappropriate. And the article misses some basic facts about later reactions to the phrase, most importantly from Hillary (she later said that the word 'conspiracy' was poorly chosen, since all that went on was pretty above ground, but she stands by the rest of it).
So, all the explanatory detail should be moved and merged into the individual controversy articles where it belongs. The debate about the controversies needs to be removed; the debate about the phrase can stay. Models of what this article should be like include I did not have sexual relations with that woman and Mission Accomplished.
Unless there are objections, I intend to modify the article accordingly. Wasted Time R 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- So done. Article definitely needs further improvement, however. Wasted Time R 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your approach sounds sensible. I agree that the article should focus on the phrase and not go into excessive detail about debates over the various controversies. All that's really needed is an overview of background material to give context to the phrase. As you say, those controversies are covered in detail at their own pages, and readers who are interested in learning more can go to those articles.--Eloil 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hit piece on the Clintons and apologetics for conservatives
Such sections as the absurdly-titled "Validity, or the lack thereof" and the plugging of "In 2005, professional conservative author Byron York played on the phrase with his book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time." make this article POV and basically an apologetic section for conservatives and critics of the Clintons.--Folksong 05:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Validity, or the lack thereof" tries to examine the accuracy of the phrase, which even Hillary Clinton agrees was somewhat inaccurate. If you want to improve the section, go ahead. The following section shows some usages of, and references to, the phrase in popular culture. Nothing wrong with that. The York title, as with many books by professional conservatives, is so hyperbolic that it undermines its own argument all by itself. Wasted Time R 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article has serious issues in terms of NPOV; it looks like it was written by a Republican. The reality is that there was a coordinated smear campaign against Clinton organized by the Republican party, and they attempted to impeach Clinton over a blow job, and this has more or less been shown - Republicans pushed for investigation after investigation, continued to produce anti-Clinton smear literature, ect. The article makes it sound like this was not the result of the Republican party attacking President Clinton, which it was, though I think most intelligent people would agree it was obviously not a well-kept secret. Titanium Dragon 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a coordinated campaign against Clinton from the earliest days. It was organized by professional Clinton-haters, who had some overlap with the Republican Party but in many cases were out there in their own universe. And some of the Clinton would-be scandals, such as Mena Airport, Troopergate, and Paula Jones, came out of this campaign. But other Clinton scandals came from elsewhere, such as Whitewater, which was driven by The New York Times, and Lewinsky/impeachment, which was brought on by Clinton himself when he foolishly decided to lie in front of a grand jury, rather than admit a truth which would not have surprised anyone or done him much harm. The article needs to make these distinctions. Wasted Time R 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is very true, though the latter impeachment thing was pretty much the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton and the Democratic party. It didn't work and everyone thought it was stupid, which was why it failed in the end. Titanium Dragon 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no conspiracy. Not only did Clinton lie to a federal judge (committing perjury, which he was eventually disbarred for,) he received a blow-job during a national security meeting (a federal offense.) He also did nothing for the economy as President. That was the internet boom and Congress.
With Rush's typical tongue in cheek
This phrase is entirely biased. First of all, it purports that Rush Limbaugh is a comedian, which is an OPINION, not a FACT. He is admittedly a "right-wing water carrier", not a comedian. Second, it attempts to delve the depths of Rush Limbaugh's mind and ASSumes he is being ironic when, for all we know, he is being, for once, blatantly honest. RARoth 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Taken care of. RARoth 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and so many others are in the entertainment industry, they often state this on the air and in their publications (even though Mr. Franken is currently running for public office, his career has been in entertainment).
Just because I don't laugh at Al Franken's jokes doesn't mean he's not a funny comedian--comedy is subjective! Just because another doesn't laugh at Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean he's not a funny comedian--we all like different stuff! Heck, some people even laugh at Ann Coulter's jokes!
Too much Political Correctness is killing American's rights to free speech. We either have the right of free expression or not . If we have the right to not be offended by others , then all of us better just sit down and shut up because somebody somewhere will be offended no matter what we say...
Rush Limbaugh is not even talked about in this article! so i recommend that the previous post be cut as it has nothing to do with the article and this is not a talk page to debate your Polictial ideas FYI no one here cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions the attacks on Clinton but not the many more on Obama. And i belive that David Brock said that it is not a "conspiracy" but that it is all in plain view.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)