Those damn Bush apologists
Orcinus has a nice post about Bush hatred and Clinton hatred.
In reality, this comparison, as I’ve pointed out, depends on an equivalency that does not exist — namely, it contrasts Republicans’ irrational and groundless attacks on Clinton (from Mena to Vince Foster to Whitewater to the ‘black love child’) with serious concerns on legitimate topics, all dealing with policy and ethical conduct, all based on established facts.
Kurtz’s comparison also stands reality on its head. People who defended Clinton — or rather, who questioned his critics — were quickly labeled “Clinton apologists.” People who irrationally attacked him were treated seriously or, at best, tut-tutted as “harsh.”
A quick Lexis-Nexis search comparing “Bush apologist” and “Clinton apologist” in major papers (correcting for letters to the editor as best I could) gives us 18 and 180, respectively. 10 times more for around 3 times the time period. Damn that liberal media! Always dismissing off-hand criticism of that icon of the right, Bill Clinton.