Clinton...what's your beef?

Great Debates
1

In reading some threads, a question occurs to me that has come up alot in my mind of late.

It’s clear that many folks despise Clinton. I and many others despise Bush & Co. (And Reagan and bushdaddy and Nixon…blah blah).

I believe that most of us who aren’t too crazy about Bush are not too crazy about him because of what he’s DOING and promising to DO that has to do with the WAY THE COUNTRY IS BEING RUN.

Every time someone talks about Clinton and how intolerably awful he is, they seem to be talking about things that have sub-zero bearing on the job of President. He lied about his blowjob. He lied to the garnd Jury about his blow job. He pardoned Marc Rich. He…what is it he did that you have such a big problem with that actually has a reall and lasting effect on our country, our planet, our people? Anything? I’m just looking for answers here, cuz I can’t find any.

I know one that bugs the shit outta ME, but it certainly isn’t a republican beef: he completely pissed me off with the Welfare bill. But none o’ youse are ticked off about that, i’m sure.

So…what is it?

And this kinda relates to the whole Gore vs. Bush question…the beef about Gore (completely undeserved, in my opinion) was that he “lied”. About what of significance? Forget that…what were the POLICIES that the right was so concerned about? (first one that pops to mind: any attempt to regulate or control gun ownership. Ok, that’s one.)

I’m genuinely curious.

thanks,

stoid

2

Pretty much sums it up for me. That, and the way he looked in the camera and lied to me.(I understand he wasn’t talking directly to me) And that he didn’t resign and dragged us all through the whole impeachment thing for what seemed like eternity, which in my mind seriously hurt Al Gore. And the wimpy ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ thing.
Yes, I voted for the man. I expected so much better from him.

3

I don’t despise Clinton, though I find him pathetic. But I’m not sure I understand your premise. Isn’t writing pardons part of “the job of President”? And didn’t lying to the Grand Jury affect his ability to govern–seemed sort of a distraction, don’t you think? How can we possibly measure the effect of what could have happened, what legislation he could have negotiated, the effect this will have on international relations, anything, had this not occurred? We can’t.

You want to limit this to “policies,” but I don’t believe that’s a fair premise. Why can’t I be royally pissed at him even if I agree with every one of his policies–pissed because he has compromised the long-term success of these programs. Your contempt for Bush is well-established. Do you think it at all possible that Clinton’s behavior had anything to do with Bush’s election? Couldn’t this, under different circumstances, have been a Gore landslide, with any discussion regarding Florida election law academic? Stoid, why aren’t you pissed, isn’t that a more valid question?

If you’re suggesting that all behavior by the Prez not directly related to the execution of his duties ought to be off limits–e.g., perjure yourself about whatever you want, so long as it’s not related to your job–it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, work that way. BTW, I was in your camp for the longest while, the “hey, he’s a good prez, so let’s ignore the personal stuff,” but Clinton has now at the end of the line convinced me: there is a line one can cross, a line of moral bankruptcy, beyond which it’s impossible to govern effectively.

He has become such a joke, such an object of ridicule–he is beyond any caricature of a politician without morals I have ever seen. What a disappointment. What a waste of such promise, of a place in history. I now feel that “character” is not such an ancillary issue in our candidates.

And history may indeed judge Clinton a mere fly, a comical passage in the annals of the executive office having no lasting effect on anything substantive. That this might be so does not mean he can’t be a legitimate target of contempt (or pity).

4

Um, y’know, there are some of us who don’t give two twits about his sex life (last I heard, he had actually gone all the way with Lewinsky… accurate? No? I don’t care). Some of us actually do dislike the fact that he committed a felony.

Beyond that, I disagree with his foreign policy choices with regards to China, I disagree with his stance on guns, I disagree with his position towards the environment, and I’m slightly annoyed about his sell-out stance regarding gays in the military. I think he was really wishy-washy about religion (c’mon, Clinton, are you a good little God-fearing man or aren’t ya?), but that’s not a big issue with me (what with my apathetic view on religion and all). I don’t think he made the best choices with regards to his staff and advisors.

But all those things merely make me dislike him as a politician. I often say, in jest, that I hate the man, but when it gets right down to it, all my beefs with him are strictly about politics. If I ever met him, I’d be polite, and cordial… I would be honest and let him know that I’m not his biggest fan, but I’m hardly his worst enemy (I think he’s his own worst enemy :D). But I don’t plan on meeting him, so that’s a moot point.

All that aside, though… there IS one thing that makes me want to absolutely hate his guts:

He’s a cat owner.

:smiley:

5

**

Joyclyn Elders was fired by Clinton because she suggested that the government should look into legalizing certain drugs. She didn’t say that drugs should be legalized just that someone should look into the possibility.

The don’t ask don’t tell thing kind of got on my nervs.

He put his wife in charge of that disasterous health care plan of theirs.

He bitched about the evils of tobacco companies and then I see photos of him with a stogie in his mouth at a golf course. (This was pre-Monica of course)

That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.

**

If someone lies to you about insignifigant things will you trust them with something signifigant? Probably not.

**

A lot of farmers voted against Gore because they feared his environmental policies. They were afraid that he might make some of their property into “protected” areas and they’d be unable to farm it. A few that I knew of also disliked his stance on issues that affected farmers. Not being a farmer I can’t get into the specifics or whether or not they had any merits. I just thought I’d give you the answer I had.

Marc

6

1)He dismissed his own dope smoking with a smartass quip, and then did not do a damn thing to stop the erosion of human rights or the demonization of pot smokers under the War on Drugs. Instead, he let it escalate.
2)He never once spoke out against the abuses of the INS.
3)(Hi O!) By refusing to veto the abolition of Welfare, he sold out the poor people of America so he could claim to have balanced the budget.
4)He pardoned a viciously predatory con-man buddy, but not activist Leonard Peltier, who is dying in prison for a crime he never had a fair chance to prove he did not commit.
5) As one of his final acts in office he had Madeline Albright arrange with Congress to give Columbia’s military $800 million for helicopters to protect the cocaine fields against the pathetic group of peasant Communist agitators who oppose their regime. (Not that I want to see the coca fields wiped out; we need the flavoring for Coca-Cola.)
6) Just before departing he rubbed salt into the wounds of imprisoned potheads by speaking up for potsmokers’ rights just as soon as he didn’t have to do a damn thing to help.
7)He is maintaining an entire floor of a New York skyscraper as his post-presidential office at taxpayer expense.

That’s enough.

7

No offense, but I think that’s a very trivial thing to be concerned about. All previous Ex-Presidents maintained offices at taxpayer expense… and while Clinton’s first choice WAS extremely expensive, he did change his mind and go with less-extravagant digs.

8

zat so? I may be behind on the news. Last I looked it was still a whole floor, though. BTW, I’m sorry that post is so badly formatted; I was tired and didn’t polish it before submitting.

9

Don’t worry about the post format… I just felt like nitpicking the last point.

Anyway, he changed his mind about office space and took up refuge in Harlem, I think. Much cheaper space. Nowhere NEAR how much his first choice cost.

10

[li]Waco[/li][li]The Waco Coverup[/li][li]War on Gun Owners[/li][li]Hillary[/li][li]Letting Hillary try to socialize our Health Care[/li][li]Running down the Military[/li][li]Raising Taxes[/li][li]Selling the Lincoln Bedroom[/li][li]Taking Money from the Communist Chinese[/li][li]Tobacco Lawsuits[/li][li]Microsoft Lawsuit[/li][li]Firearms manufacturers lawsuits[/li][li]Perverting an American Icon, Smith & Wesson[/li][li]Telling lies straight to the American people[/li][li]Quibbling over the meaning of the word “is”[/li][li]Their land grab policy[/li][li]The war on Kosovo[/li][li]Selling out Isreal (my opinion)[/li][li]Selling out Taiwan[/li][li]Selling our nuclear secrets to the Communist Chinese[/li]I guess I could on for another half hour or so, but I really don’t want to waste that much time on that man.

11

You want to frame dislike of Clinton as some irrational Republican frenzy. Some Republicans irrationally hate him, just as some Democrats irrationally hate Bush. However, there are legitimate reasons for disliking him, in my opinion.

Don’t try to dismiss the Rich pardon with a quick mention. He essentially sold that pardon, and that’s corrupt. Other presidents may have done it too, but that doesn’t excuse this kind of banana republic crap.

He oversaw a steady erosion of civil liberties. He restricted the scope of habeas corpus, he signed the Communications Decency Act, he continued the destructive War on Drugs, etc.

As for those who dislike his actions “unrelated to the presidency”, there is a fine line here. Some would argue that perjury indicates a personality trait that is not appropriate for a man of such power. That’s the line some people draw. If a president was found to have raped and murdered somebody, would you still vote for him? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn’t, but I bet there’s a line you draw somewhere. Others draw it in a different place.

12

I’d say Stoid’s already been given all of these answers, and she, pretty comprehensively, has them all listed out for her here, yet again.

And they won’t change her position one whit. So why she asks, I’m not exactly sure. You don’t understand yet?

I would only add to what already has been said: Clinton also

- Showed a general, smug disdain for the rule of law.

- Showed a general, smug disdain for law enforcement (That I believe contributed mightily to the terrible pardons he granted in his last days. He didn’t have the justice department weigh in on them because he flat-out doesn’t like those people and doesn’t care what they have to say.)

- Showed a general, smug disdain for the military (As evidenced by increasing government spending well above the rate of inflation, year after year; outlining a laundry list of spending for various social causes at every State of the Union address, right down to minuscule causes; yet allows military personnel to live in terribly substandard housing and, in some cases, need to rely on federal assistance for their families. Not to mention he appears to have taken military action against Afghanistan and The Sudan, putting our soldiers in harm’s way, to detract attention from the heat he was receiving over Monica.)

With many of his actions, from the Rich, Vignali and other pardons, even the selling of technology to China that’s now used for long-range missiles that are pointed at us, evidence exists that Clinton friends and hefty contributors benefited.

And we won’t even get into Clinton’s Tackiness Factor. Auctioning off nights in the Lincoln bedroom, taking ridiculous amounts of gifts and White House furniture with them when they left, etc.

Warren Harding’s probably breathing a sigh of relief somewhere, that a president more morally bankrupt came along.

13

President Clinton was assailed repeatedly by Republicans for his policies regarding creation of national monuments, which really ticked off people in the west who thought they should have some say in what part of their backyards were going to be declared off-limits. His foreign policy was under fire regularly from the hard-liners because it wasn’t tough on traditional ‘enemies’ such as the People’s Republic of China or North Korea. His mis-adventure in Somalia was quite excoriated from both sides of the aisle. The whole health care issue was a disaster, a classic example of trying to do too much too soon. You will note that George Bush the Younger is a quick study; he has a much more limited and practical agenda for his first year in office.

As to ‘Dubya’, Democrats have repeatedly assailed him during the campaign for such ‘irrelevancies’ as his inability to name obscure foreign leaders, his mispronounciation or misuse of words, his reputed lack of intellect, his delegation of authority to his Vice-President, his failure to reveal the truth about his drinking history, including past criminal difficulties, etc. There are any number of people opposed to the President on personal grounds as well as policy grounds, which hardly puts the Democrats on the high ground on this ‘issue’.

Which gets us to the ‘issue’ outlined in the OP. Is it truly irrelevant to the question of who should be President whether or not he is truthful and trustworthy? On the one hand, yes, I would prefer a lying SOB with good policies to a truthful person whose policies were a disaster. In that regard, I would rather debate issues regarding policy before issues regarding character. However, character is not irrelevant to the concept of who should be president, as the example of Richard Milhous Nixon proved once and for all. No matter how obnoxious you might view his policies, it was his moral failings that drove him from the office, and which lead most to consider him a ‘bad’ president. By the same token, Jimmy Carter was morally a good person, but his policies were in general ineffective, yet while we think of him as an ineffective president, not even the most ardent right-wing politicians will vilify him.

In the final analysis, Mr. Clinton will likely be viewed as a man who was mildly effective as President, who had his terms during a positive economic and foreign policy period, who in the end accomplished little of grand sweep, and who suffered from an inability to say ‘no’ and an unwillingness to admit his sins when they were brought to light. The pardon of Mr. Rich (IMHO) shows these weaknesses at work, and it is perhaps unfortunate that they are the final act we will remember by this president, rather than some policy triumph.

14

  1. I dislike him because he has single-handedly done more to demean and undermine the office of the Presidency than any president since Nixon – which puts him at a very respectable No. 2 on the all-timers list.

  2. I dislike him because I see very little that he accomplished in office of any lasting scope, and very little good that was even done while he was IN office that can be credited to him and his policies, as opposed to a booming economy. You know, the sort of accomplishments that might serve to offset his rather egregious stumbles – like getting himself impeached.

  3. I dislike him because he is a liar and a philanderer, with the moral fiber of a stoat. From lying under oath to carting off the furniture as he left – he has managed to do any number of things that I personally find very distasteful. And while a strong argument might be made that his morality (or lack thereof) can be separated from his governance, I personally am not interested in being led by an individual whose hand I would not be willing to shake if I met him on the street. I found his actions shameful and the realization that he really DOESN’T have any shame to be both astonishing and dismaying.

Hey, you asked.

15

On a personal level, I disliked his infidelity. The sheer stupidity of the Monica selection itself bothered me as well. But all of that was on a personal level.

On a public level, I tired of the continual fodder he gave to his detractors. If anyone should have understood he was under a spot light, he should have.

There were massive changes in the Welfare programs and Jobs programs under his watch (not necessarily by him). The changes in the Welfare program rules have had some paper success, but I fear what will happen when the current prosperity wears off. The changes in the Jobs programs only took effect on July 1 and the early numbers that I’m seeing and hearing from the local folks are not good at all (no web cites available, this is all very new data, however, if you’re able to attend the open meetings of your local Workforce Development Board, you’ll be able to hear it as well).

However, what I tire the most of, is the continual assumption that if he did something, it must be heinouos. For example:

Currently that is an allegation, there is an investigation into the matter, but to date, there has been no proof offered save the fact that Rich’s ex wife made donations. There are other explanations available to explain why pardon Rich(the fact that a major ally of ours offered letters of support for the pardon for example). But, at least in this case there is an investigation of the possability, as oppposed to this one (yea, it’s not an exact match, of course, but, at least in the Rich case, the pardon had been also requested by a major national ally, not simply a financial friend of the pres)

16

I personally believe it was a *quid pro quo[/]. They will never prove it, because Clinton’s not a complete idiot. I doubt there’s a contract written up that says “Whereas William Clinton (“President”) is desirous of raising money for his party and library and, Whereas Marc Rich (“fugitive”) is desirous of a pardon…” And, yes, there is the issue of Israel. But, I think there are enough data points to extrapolate a line here. Israel also wanted Pollard out, but his wife didn’t give $1.5 million. I think the Israel angle is a bit of a canard. Yeah, they wrote a letter, but the real action came from Denise Rich’s frequent contact and Jack Quinn’s work.

I skimmed the article you linked to and it does look fishy. I’ve never said Clinton was the only one to do it. But he did it and that’s one of the reasons I don’t think he was a particularly good president (though I don’t “hate” him). I also think the fact that the main defense of Clinton has been “others have done it” does as much to damn him as anything. He really doesn’t have a legitimate defense for that pardon.

17

There are only two kinds of people who don’t make mistakes…dumb ones and dead ones. Now we’ve got a dumb one who isn’t going to do sh*t and will point the finger at someone else for every mistake his administration makes.Their sole purpose is to maintain power.To them,the betterment of the average Joe’s life is not a consideration.

Clinton did a lot of things. The vast majority were good,but the right wing media and congress ate him up on his failures.Clinton will be judged a very good President by historians,while wind me up,tax cut smirk will be a sad joke.

18

** Fine, then post it as such, and not as a fact.

I posted the link to Papa Bush’s pardon, not as a ‘see other people might have done it too, so it’s ok that Clinton might have’, but as a contrast - there’s less reason shown for Bush’s pardon. And, while you might personally believe that the Rich pardon was for money and only money, there are two facts that tend to detract from that position:

  1. If the point is that Clinton would pardon the Devil if the price were large enough, a. why so little? (Rich has offered much larger bribes in the past), b. why not the Junk Bond King who had lots more $$ to offer?

  2. There IS another, visible reason to pardon Rich. One of our most important allies, in a critical part of the world asked him to do so. you might summarily dismiss it, but it’s there. There was no such alternate reason offered in the Papa Bush case.

19

Others have listed many of Clinton’s failings.

He also bombed Iraq in an effort to prevent or delay his own impeachment. Innocent lives were lost, not because of international policy, but because Clinton didn’t care as much about them as he did about saving his own hide.

He sexually harassed women (and lied about it). Has it been forgotten that the reason investigators discovered his adulterous relations with Ms. Lewinsky was because of changes in sexual harassment laws that allowed questions about prior history? When they were being applied to conservatives, all this was fine; when it was a Democratic butt in the hot seat, suddenly it is all private behavior and irrelevant to his job. He sexually harassed Paula Jones in the course of his job; does this count?

He ruined the reputation and bankrupted the innocent employees of the White House travel office in order to pass the job to his cronies.

He sold out national security not just to the Chinese (in return for illegal campaign contributions), but also to the North Koreans, just because.

He also…

Oh, the hell with it. No one who is prepared to excuse what he has done already is going to be convinced by being reminded of it - and I am sick of watching him slime up American politics anyway.

20

You are speaking of the tax cut Mr. Clinton campaigned on in 1991 and 1992, right? If so, you are absolutely correct. It did turn out to be a sad, sad joke.

What do I personally revile most about Clinton? His absolute inability to exercise good judgement. His massive arrogance. His steady stream self-serving justifications for his bad decisions. And finally, his Brobdingnagian tax increase. My overall impression of Mr. Clinton is that of a person I would not count among my friends if I were to personally know him; a guy who, if he offered to buy a beer for me in a bar, I would refuse. He simply seems untrustworthy an unworthy of respect.