Shodan: see F.U. Shakespeare and Little Nemo above. Really, what you’re arguing is quite lame. I have no doubt that if the economy fell off a cliff during his watch that you’d be blaming Clinton, not the Congress.
I did read those cites Frostillicus, and with all due respect, they don’t convince me of Reagan’s racism.
Understand now, I don’t deny for a minute that there were racists who voted for Reagan. And a few of them may have actually interpreted Philadelphia, MS and ‘States Rights’ as you’re claiming.
Check the response by Steven Hayward on this page for a more benign explanation of why the campaign launch occurred in Philadelphia.
I’m no Reagan fan. He had other flaws. But racism wasn’t likely one of them.
I just finished reading
The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton by Joe Klien and think it is a great book regardless of where you stand on Clinton.
One of Klien’s passages points out that politicians hate abstractions; they love concrete things that constituents can see, like infrastructure. But deficeit reduction was an abstraction; it was not absolutely clear what effect it would have, and if the effect would be visible, but Clinton stongly wanted it, and the result was impressive surpluses (at the time). Another time Clinton pushed for an Earned Income Tax credit, even though he had nothing politically to gain from it. He simply thought it was the right thing to do.
Clinton is just an amazing public speaker. Even his enemies acknowledge that.
Check out this fascinating book. It’s short and an easy read. If you hate Clinton, it will explain his good points. If you love him, it will show why he caused so much consternation.
Bill Clinton was a strong defender of abortion rights, and he overturned Reagan-era bills that banned the US from assissting international aid groups that offered abortions or distributed birth control, which would have been an excellent idea on Clinton’s part even if much of the third world wasn’t confronting the AIDS crisis.
He used his veto power frequently when the Congressional Republicans attempted to attach absurd riders to spending bills or other necessary legislation. The most famous example was when the Republicans attached an attempt to slash the budget of the Census Department to a disaster relief bill.
He fought for NAFTA and got it passed despite strong opposition from the far right.
He fought for the Brady Bill and the use of federal funds to hire 100,000 new police officers, and for the use of new tactics against crime. The result was huge progress, especially in the inner-city areas where crime had soarded during the previous two administrations.
His administration was relatively free of corruption.
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to Whitewater: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the FBI files: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the Travel Office Investigation: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the investigation into the Labor Department: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the investigation in the Agriculture Department: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the Lewinsky matter: 0
Total Clinton Administration convictions related to the investigation of Eli Siegal: 0
And we could go on like this for quite a while.
Speaking as one of the 57% or so who voted for someone else twice, I do have to say there is one incident that I find to be extraordinary. I recall a speech he made before Congress (SOTU?) where, so I read, he had the wrong speech loaded in the teleprompter. He continued on, with the correct speech no less, without the audience knowing the difference. I was watching that speech and never noticed anything either. Anyone would have to say that is an amazing thing.
Dear F.U. Please re-read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that Reagan was a racist. I gave an example of how he was racially divisive. It is not remotely the same thing. (I.e., appealing to racists for their votes doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. It makes you a politician.)
Point taken Frostillicus.
Clinton had a unique ability to “bond” to his audience. That being said, I can’t think of a less capable modern president.
His record as governor of Arkansas speaks reams about his performance as a leader…Arkansas…first in the nation for teenage pregnancies and hookworm!
-
I admired him for what he tried to do with healthcare but was stymied by the republicans.
-
For vetoing the “Partial Birth Abortion” ban the republicans tried to pass.
-
It depends upon what your definition of the word “is” is.
-
8 years of peace and prosperity.
-
He didn’t screw anything up too badly.
ralph124c, your post is an excellent example of the phenomenon Little Nemo warns about – you announce your intention to evaluate Clinton’s presidency, and then quote his record as governor of Arkansas.
Then you pronounce him a poor leader, due to his poor record as governor.
Conveniently ignoring his record as President.
Am I to assume that if his Arkansas record had been one of relative improvement, but the country had subsequently suffered a shrinking economy and terrible wars under his presidency, you would have pronounced him a good leader?
You’re blaming Clinton for hookworms?
On the Reagan-as-racist hijack:
Unless Reagan was a moron (which surely no Republican would concede), he had to know exactly what message was sent by delivering a speech on “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia is a small town, known for exactly one thing: the murder of three civil rights workers (as dramatized/fictionalized in the movie Mississippi Burning).
“States’ rights” (as used in Mississippi during the Civil Rights campaigns there) was understood to mean the right to maintain segregated facilities in the face of federal madates to integrate.
If Reagan was not a racist (and not a moron) then he was at least guilty of knowingly making an appeal to racist voters in the South.
Back to the OP:
I’ll add another point in Clinton’s favor. His environmental record, though not perfect, was vastly better than what we’ve seen under Republican administrations. Even now, Bush underlings are busily tearing down Clinton-era protections of National Forests.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut *
**Once again (and this time I’m not comparing him to anyone), he understood the way an economy works. It just so happens that we were going through unprecedented growth. He could’ve cut or raised taxes, and he could’ve increased or decreased government spending. But he didn’t (at least not substantially) because they weren’t appropriate for what was going on. This takes a lot of maturity. Most politicians would do something just for the purpose of achieving a legacy. He was truly a selfless man in this regard.
I would make just the opposite statement about Clinton understanding how an economy works. Clinton’s first act as president was to socialize the entire health care industry (it cost him both houses). That would have been the all-time financial screw-up. Anything the government does requires an administration fee above that of the original task. Taxes would have spiraled out of control like it is doing in every nation that has tried it.
A selfless man? His wife sold short in the stock market in pharmaceuticals and then went on a speaking tour bashing the industry. If any citizen had done that they would be in jail for manipulating the market. I’d call that selfish.
Peace? The WTC attacks can be laid DIRECTLY at his feet. Bin Laden was well known during Clinton’s term. Clinton turned down numerous offers by Sudan to hand him over.
As for his popularity with Black people, WOW. Clinton actually went on a 7-nation tour of Africa where he stopped in Rhwanda to APOLOGIZE for not intervening in the genocide. He stayed 2 hours there (keeping the engines running on AF1) and refused to visit a memorial to the 650,000 dead. How many Kurds did Saddam kill? The KKK couldn’t have elected a better president.
I believe the postings in his favor fall into 2 categories: emotional, and die-hard. The first is a result of Clinton’s superior public speaking abilities. It is the same reason Reagan is popular. The second is a defensive mechanism that assumes any attack on Clinton is an attack on the party. Something Rush Limbaugh does nothing to dissuade.
As for his accomplishments, I look forward to reading them. It is obvious I don’t like him but I’ll give him credit where credit is due.
Ok, so you don’t like Reagan and thought he should’ve done more for race relations than, well, more than any other president before him. He didn’t. But that does not make him racially divisive.
Don’t know how old you are Captain, but Yugoslavia was scary. Remember, the Russians had a large stake in that country. It’s all about perception I guess, we always think the times we live in are unique.
In keeping with the OP’s question that’s why I was listing Clinton’s actions.
Each and every action against Clinton ordered against Iraq, as listed in my previous post, was not authorized by the UN. The conflict in Yugoslavia did not get UN authorization, because the Russians were dead set against it. During Clinton’s term in office the US was as self centered as it has ever been under any other president, you want to give Clinton credit for something? Fine, but please don’t say it was because of “peace” or “not going against the ‘international community’”.
Doc, just because you didn’t see it it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. For goodness sake, they made a movie about the conflict in Somalia. A good question though is why exactly those actions did not get the attention they deserved.
Selflessness
Re-read JJ’s post – he’s referring to political selflessness, not material. I am not defending JJ’s position, but you’re misstating it.
Popularity with black people
Clinton’s ‘mend it, don’t end it’ compromise did a lot to keep affirmative action alive. What’s so hard to understand about the people who benefitted holding Clinton in high regard? (Again, I personally am not a proponent of most affirmative action programs, so I’m not praising the accomplishment, just explaining the importance).
Peace
Bin Ladin is not easy to catch – ask President Bush, who’s had two and a half years.
Also, can the 1993 WTC attacks be laid at the feet of George H. W. Bush? (OK, now I’m being disingenuous --that was an unfair charge. 9/11 changed the whole focus in foreign policy – see how tempting it is to make imprecise comparisons?)
Accomplishments
See my and others’ posts to this thread.
I believe the postings in this thread (which did ask for reasons people like Clinton) fall into two categories – people with something to contribute about this complex, polarizing political figure; and others.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Magiver *
**
Sorry, but that is an absurd statement and misleading to the extreme. The operation in Yugoslavia was with NATO support, and other operations, such as Haiti, were fully sanctioned by the UN.
The WTC attacks can be directly laid to those morons who believe that toppling a dictator will transform a region into a paradise of freedom and democracy. The last time, it was Najibulla. Now it is Iraq.
It is interesting that you would hold Clinton responsible for dead Kurds, but not Bush sr. After all, it was Bush sr. who incited the Kurds and Shiites to revolt against Saddam but then failed to support them as promised, leading to wholesale butchery.
It is funny how Republicans are entitled to sponsor wholesale butchery time and again, but Democrats are considered despicable for every single dead body.
Once you folks stop cheering for the likes of Ollie North, you will have some credibility with such arguments, but until then, they are just testimony of a double standard that is plain and simple ridiculous.