JOHN'S LAW

I think your law is not generally applicable. 20 years ago, it would have been President Kennedy. Heck, the Kennedy clan still comes up a lot. I don't know that President Clinton will have the staying power to make this a general rule, nor does he have a lot of politically active relatives to keep the flames burning. If Senator Clinton makes a good presidential run all that might change.

Yeah, i understand that John's Law has a limited shelf-life. It will last until a new Democratic President is in office. It doesn't have the timeless elegance of Godwin's Law.

Until then, it's a good 'un.

Thanks, Soz--i found the thought amusing, and so amply demonstrated.

I think comparisons and such between recent presidents are inevitable, particularly when they are from different parties. When one side's president is being accused of something or lambasted for something, it is only natural for his side to try to minimize the damage by saying something along the lines of "Well yeah, but your guy did it too" or "Well at least he doesn't get bj's from underlings on taxpayer time" or some other well placed barb.

I would be surprised if once Bush is out of office and if the next prez was a democrat that those on the left will not be bringing up Bush whenever the new prez is being particularly razzed upon by republicans. Of course, Bush can avoid some of that if another republican is elected.

This . . .



. . . is a matter of opinion. Usually, it only constitutes whining. As for the Shrub, i rather doubt that he will come out smelling like a rose. No matter who is elected next, his name will be Mudd for a long time to come.

Well, that's a way to make John's Law less tied to its time, then (though I like it as something that is Clinton-specific -- did people bring up Reagan all the time in the Clinton years? Anyway...)

Something like:

As an online discussion of American politics grows longer, the probability of a member of the party currently in office responding to criticism of the president by bringing up misdeeds of the last president who was a member of the opposition party approaches one.

OK, that's WAY too long and awkward...

How about this, Soz?

As an online discussion of American politics grows longer, the probability of a comparison by a member incumbent's party to a former president of the other party approaches one.

Good!

It doesn't have enough of that whole "blow job nanny nanny boo boo" vibe to it, though -- I mean, "comparison", that's reasonable enough...

How 'bout:

As an online discussion of American politics grows longer, the probability of a puerile comparison by a member of the incumbent's party to a former president of the other party approaches one.

"Well placed barb" does not exactly convey what I was meaning, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. But hopefully you get my drift. Maybe "well placed comeback" would have been better.

And yeah, just as Kennedy seems to have staying power as mentioned earlier, I think Bush will have more staying power for your new law than Clinton.

That's a good point which i had not considered. See my revision of the "law" based on Soz's suggestion.

Oh, and I like the change made to the wording or your law. I think you may have something here Set.

I posit you include a note versing:

"Original version and it's wording will apply when a republican is in power"

that should give your first draft a much longer shelf life.

I dunno, i think it now works well in its final (so far) revised version. Thanks to Soz.

I like revised general and specific rules.

i'm sure that Bush Jr. will have staying power, but within the context of a different rule. Who wants to make up that one?

@sumac:

I'm sure "Homer Simpson" will be dethroned.