Most likely, they’ll credit for the economic prosperity to the huge technology boom that happened to coincide with Clinton’s presidency.
Unless you expect Clinton to give a “I invented the iMac” speech.
Contrary to popular belief, some people ARE disgusted by the fact that the man committed a felony.
Also, Clinton did help substantially reduce the national debt-something Dubya’s probably going to reverse, IMHO.
And remember Reagan and the Iran Contra? Why is lying about a blowjob worse than selling arms to an enemy and pocketing the money?
Pardon me for resorting to facts here, rjung, but what you like to call the “Lewinsky impeachment” was actually the “Clinton lying repeatedly to grand juries” impeachment. We here in civilized society call that “perjury,” a felony crime under federal and state laws. And yes, I think it’s reasonable to assume that an impeachment might just wind up being a “big blot on Clinton’s record.” Worked that way for Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
In any case, comparing Reagan’s memory lapses with regard to the Iran-Contra thing with Clinton’s flat-out lies when he was caught with his pecker out of his pants – AGAIN --is a little bit silly, don’t you think?
Whether his methods were squeaky-clean or not, Reagan sought to create a win-win by (a) supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and (b) helping Iran kick some Iraqi ass. (Yeah, that would be our old buddy, Saddam Hussein.) In the light of subsequent developments, I can’t help wishing Reagan had been MORE successful!
Willie, on the other hand, was merely caught with his cigar in the cookie jar. The Philanderer-in-Chief had Congress and the bulk of the press firmly on his side, was riding high in the polls, and could easily have managed a “Jesse Jackson” with little damage. Instead he chose to lie to two grand juries (perjury), thereby establishing a pattern of misleading investigators (obstruction of justice) and paving his own way to impeachment.
There was a time in my life when I thought being a Rhodes Scholar was mondo cool. That time has passed.
“Pocketing the money?” Is that what you think went on?
[Note to Moderator: Isn’t there some sort of “awareness quotient” applied to posters here?]
Guin, there ARE other sources of news besides Sam Donaldson and The National Enquirer.
The Reagan administration did sell arms to Iran, and at the time, Iran was seen as an “enemy.” The Iranians (those bastards!) used the arms to inflict damage on Iraq, which even you must know turned out to be the “real enemy” of the U.S. and most of the rest of the world, at least in the Middle East (those BIGGER bastards!). Meanwhile, the profits from the arms sales were funneled – secretly and probably technically illegally – to the Contras, who were fighting a guerrilla war against the ruling Communist regime in Nicaragua. While Reagan himself was likely privy to the overall scheme, the details were left to his staff. Oliver North became briefly famous as one of the primary facilitators of the deal.
In other words, Reagan and his administration severely bent some rules to promote what Reagan and his advisors felt were two good things: support for the Contras, and grief for Saddam Hussein. I don’t recall allegations that anyone “pocketed the money.”
Willie, on the other hand, had only his personal and political well-being in mind when, after questions were raised about Monica Lewinsky – yet ANOTHER of his known dalliances – he flat lied to two grand juries. Recently he has admitted that he lied, thereby proving by his own words that Congress should have had the guts at the time (during the impeachment) to throw his sorry ass out.
Oh, BTW, Willie did NOTHING to “substantially reduce the national debt,” and ‘Dubya’ will likely do NOTHING to increase it. Willie inherited an economy that was on the very cusp of great things, none of which were of his making. As I’ve said before on this board, at least he had the grace to keep his nasty fingers out of it, and just let it happen. George W. Bush, like his predecessor, will have little to do with the overall economy, simply because the potential effect of the executive branch is limited. I applaud “Dubya’s” dedication to a tax cut; clearly, it’s long overdue! But I can’t equate that with an automatic increase in the national debt.
Off the subject, BUT… Has anyone else noticed how the mainstream press that vilified the “greed” of the Reagan eighties has spent eight years glorifying the “good times” of the Clinton nineties?
You’re right about “pocketing” the money. I knew something illegal was done with it, and I simply forgot. Still, that sounds pretty shitty right there.
MUCH worse than lying about getting head.
“Simply forgot?” OK, I’m assuming that now you “simply remember” and it makes no difference?
“Lying about getting head,” I would point out, is at the very least immoral. Lying about it to two different grand juries is immoral and stupid, and qualifies as perjury in any state. The pattern of lying leads to a charge of obstruction of justice.
Still, that sounds pretty shitty right there.
MUCH worse than lying about trying to overthrow a Communist Central American regime while, at the same time, aiding in the punishment dealt to a rogue Middle Eastern dictator.
Ooooh. A Communist dictator. Much worse than the puppet dictator we had propped up in there for so many years. Of course, those terrible commies had far fewer death squads roaming the country than the Somosistas that Reagan thought were so great–and when the commies called actual open elections (something Somoza never did with our patronage) and lost, they actually stepped down.
And Reagan had to violate U.S. law and international law (nothing “technical” about it) and then demonstrate that the U.S. held all law in contempt by refusing to abide by the decision of the World Court–the same World Court that we wanted to judge Libyan bombers.
I’m glad you’re so proud of hypocrisy. (I have no use for Clinton, but Reagan had no more ethics than Clinton.)
I think everyone trading blows (sorry, backup, I didn’t intend a pun) punches, over whos lying sack of shit will be remembered in a more favorable light, is kind of silly.
In a hundred years, the books will probably read something like this:
R Reagan, and his vice-president and successor GHW Bush (distinguished from his son, GW Bush, 43rd president and grandson GP Bush, 48th president), presided over the final battles of the cold war, and the dismantling of that incredibly silly experiment in starving your citzens to death called “Communism.” They were involved in some minor scandals, the worst of which was the sales of arms to one bogeyman country, located in what is now Greater Arabia, with the proceeds going to illegally fund a group of insurgents against a Communist regime in a small country located what is now Greater Hispania.
W Clinton (distinguished from his daughter, C Clinton, 49th president) presided over a great growth in the economy of the US, and a great growth in its international prestige, being the only remaining superpower of its time (until the Arab, European, and Hispanic Unions got their shit together in the mid-21st century). As amazing as it sounds, the burgeoning Information Revolution was not stopped in its tracks by Clinton’s tax increases. Computers made many new efficiencies in manufacturing possible and became essential in everyday life. He was accused from time to time of an almost Nixonian abuse of power, but usually deflected the blame for things to subordinates who gladly fell on their swords out of loyalty to Clinton. The major scandal which marred his presidency was, believe it or not, actually related to receiving oral pleasures from a young female intern (note to reader: this was before the 33rd Amendment, which guaranteed every American the right to hot oral sex). He was impeached for purjury and obstruction of justice, but not convicted. This impeachment was stricken from the record of Congress by the 32nd Amendment, which gave a general pardon to all Americans persecuted for wanting hot oral sex.
Oh, and yes, I do know that Iran is not an Arab country (please don’t bother flaming me on this).
You want honest?
They’re the modern-day Chester Arthurs. Seemed important at the time, irrelevant over the long haul. The collapse of the USSR and the rise of the Information Age are the products of Gorbachev and Gates, not Frick and Frack. The economic restoration of the United States will be credited to Greenspan, and maybe to Voelker for stopping inflation. These people will be the subjects of study. The modern Presidency will be remembered as less bread, more circus and will be fodder for the Twenty-Second Century version of “Jeopardy!”
“The two presidents who were impeached.”
“Who are Andrew Johnson and…Ronald Reagan, Alexbot?”
“Oooh, sorry. So close. Bill Clinton is the correct answer, not Reagan. Easy mistake to make.”
Why the gratuitous Chester Arthur bash? He presided over one of the most important issues of the time, civil service reform. This important reform led a weakening of the spoils system and was a fundamental change in the government of the US.
Chet Arthur does present the image of just another 19th Century president whose main work was growing facial hair. I hadn’t heard about civil service reform in connection with him, and if it really was his idea, and not the way containing the Soviets was Reagan’s idea or cutting the budget deficit was Clinton’s, then he’s not getting a fair break. That airport should be his.
Despite this, a student of 19th Century society would be better served studying Edison’s or Carnegie’s work than Arthur’s.
An excerpt from the Atlanta Constitution editorial:
In other words, Clinton’s policies led to the remarkably low interest rates which have been fueling the boom these past eight years.
Come on, give the guy some credit.
Thanks, TXLonghorn, I needed that. Your teacherbot awards you a very postive, yet non-committal and non-confining, appraisal of your learning.
from a 1997 Washington post article
While Reagan did seek to end the Soviet Union, Clinton was forced by the congressional republicans to balance the budget. Remember the president is in charge of foreign policy while the house of representatives is in charge of the budget.
I find it amusing to hear the views of seemingly intelligent posters ramble on about how great of a president Reagan was, and about how much of failure Clinton was. I don’t have much interest or knowledge about many of the subjects that have already been discussed here, but I do know a thing or two about economics.
And if anyone thinks that Reagan’s economics policies and beliefs improved our economy, think again. I think its a joke that Reagan supporters will actually argue that his economic shenanigans like cutting taxes and increasing government spending actually had a positive impact on the economy. GET A FRIGGIN’ MACROECONOMICS BOOK! You don’t even need an Econ degree to understand it. I’ve summarized the way the economy works in other posts, and I can’t type very fast so I won’t do it again. But, in summary, cutting taxes and increasing spending the way Reagan did is tantamount to selling America’s soul to the devil. Its like selling your grandkids into slavery before they’re even born. And I hope that Reagan burns in hell for it! (Well, not REAL hell, but Economics hell where he will be lectured for 8 hours a day by John Maynard Keynes and where he won’t be able to whisk himself to his ranch everytime the going got tough). Its hard to measure how much of a positive impact Clinton had on the economy. But at least he did the right things. And if we can blame Reagan for selling our souls, we should at least give credit to Clinton for being in charge when we got them back. And for restoring our future and freeing our grandkids IN 8 YEARS.
I don’t subscribe to any individual school of thought. So I don’t categorize myself as a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. But I have noticed that the ‘liberals’ I’ve dealt with in my life are better-educated, more willing to learn, and more on the side of progress. The ‘conservatives’ I know seem to nitpick every little thing that Clinton does and block all of the credit that he deserves. Basically, no matter what Clinton did in his presidency, they were only there to create problems. They always hated Clinton because he was so intelligent, and so charismatic, and so bulletproof that he put every conservative leader in US history to shame. So they get him for lying about a secret affair. I mean, you’re SUPPOSED to lie about affairs. If you just went out and told everyone about it, it wouldn’t be an affair. And people of power do these things. Its not right, but its the price that we pay for having good leaders. And just because Reagan or Bush were too weak or too whipped to maintain an erection doesn’t make them good presidents.
And the rest of world already sees how great Clinton was. And I’ve spoken to US citizens who regularly worked with foreigners during both administrations. These are international lawyers and business people. And I’d estimate that 80% of them have told me that the rest of the world regarded Reagan as a joke and Clinton as a star.
I always feel bad for my liberal friends because the word ‘liberal’ is almost regarded as a slur. And people are so proud to be ‘conservative’. I think we should come up with a new word to describe conservatives: How about “SLOWPOKES”? I mean that is a pretty accurate description, right? They’re a little SLOW to change, SLOW to learn new things, SLOW to accept new ideas. Now please understand, the SLOW in no way refers to their intelligence, but to the pace at which they allow themselves to grow. There are many very intelligent people who allow themselves to remain conservative. So lets spread the word: CONSERVATIVE = SLOWPOKE.
I think I’ll start a new thread proposing this again.
I wonder if the rest of the world that regards Reagan as a joke includes the millions of people who were living under communism before Reagan took office and are free now.
I agree that it is difficlut to measure that good Clinton has done for the economy but science is rapidly progressing and one day we will have an instrument to measure things that small.
The problem is that even if we had such an instrument, and it showed that Clinton’s effect was great, the conservatives would spend $millions in order to discredit the inventor of the instrument and then instead give the credit to the previous Republican administration.
Rest assured that if and when such an instrument is invented Clinton will take credit for it as he has taken credit for a myriad of things he had nothing to do with. Also when the results of just how little good Clinton did the economy becomes known Clinton will try to get the news out of the paper by attacking a small country. Only this time he will order Buddy to do it since he no longer has an army to cover his mistakes.
Wrong. As a practical matter, the budget is worked out by compromise, at least when Congress and the Presidency are controlled by different political parties.
The President proposes the budget, Congress proposes a budget, then the two sides hammer out a budget that the President is willing to sign.
Remember the government shutdown, puddleglum? The Republicans wanted to cut taxes. It was Clinton who insisted that deficit reduction was more important than tax reduction. The Republicans blinked, and it was Clinton who got his way, not the Republicans in congress, as your earlier post implied.
Clinton, not Congress, gets the credit.