Have to disagree with you David B. Bush won in '88 by riding Reagan’s success. Plus Reagan was still immensely popular. It’s unlikely that anything could have derailed him from a third term.
As for the Alzheimer’s, if it weren’t made public by the '92 election, less than four years after he actually left office, it was a non-factor. (I don’t recall when it first became public, either.)
Now now, rocket science isn’t all that tough. Sure, there are a few differential equations that pop up here and there, but it’s all plain old Newtonian mechanics – and besides, all the differential equations have already been solved by others a loooooong time ago.
The real brain twister is analog A.C. electrical engineering. They use complex numbers just for voltages and currents, fer cryin’ out loud. Rocket science may require a matrix multiplication here and there, but they still keep all their calculations on the real number line!
Nah. Clinton would have beaten either Reagan or Bush in '92. We were in the middle of a recession, remember? Clinton’s mantra of “It’s the economy stupid” would have carried him to victory over either Republican. Furthermore, the cloud of the Iran-Contra scandal was still hanging over the Reagan/Bush administration.
I would vote for Clinton again. When you boil it all down, the guy lied to conceal an affair. Big deal. You could make a pretty strong case that Reagan and Bush lied under oath to conceal an abuse of power (Iran-Contra). Much more serious in my book.
As to the affair itself? Big deal. Clinton joins a long line of Presidential philanderers, many of whom were enormously effective as Presidents. It’s hard to argue with Clinton’s record of 8 uninterrupted years of growth and prosperity.
Oh yeah, and Bush didn’t win in '88 because he was any great shakes. He was still fighting the ‘wimp’ tag at that point. (Not to mention his still-inexplicable choice of Quayle as a running mate.) Bush won because he was up against an even bigger wimp, Dukakis. Bush was very “beatable” if the Democrats had assembled a decent ticket.
The recession of the early 90’s was a direct result of the tax hike during the Bush administration. Had Reagan won a third term, he’d not have gone along with the tax hike. Without a recession there would have been noone listening to the Clinton election material. (Rememeber '88 when Clinton was cheered for ENDING his speech at the Democratic Convention? The party didn’t really know who he was and was damned glad that they didn’t have to listen to him any longer!)
The “8 uninterrupted years of growth and prosperity” actually go back a bit further. They are a continuation of the economy built under the Bush administration once the recession had ended.
I agree that I don’t care about he and Monica. He’s not the first president, husband, man to cheat on his wife. Nor will he be the last. I won’t crucify him for it. Lying to his friends and family about it is also between he and his peers.
But once caught, lying about it in court is another matter. So is getting on TV, looking right at the camera (into the eyes of the nation) and lying there as well.
I expect politicians to lie. It’s a job requirement. But use tact, damnit. Don’t look me in the eye and lie so badly that it’s obvious that you’re lying.
And for goodness sake, perjury IS a crime.
What puzzles me is why all the tsimmes over Monica and the windowless corridor and yet the press and the Republicans have totally ignored Clinton taking bribes from the Chinese?
In my view, Clinton’s biggest problem was not Monica (not a problem at all if he kept it outside the white house). But he does have blatent disregard for congress, since he completely abused his ‘executive order’ ability.
I don’t think we go through all the trouble of electing those flea bags to have Willie go about doing what ever he feels like. I like the idea of a popular president serving more than three terms, but I also like the idea of term limits to protect us from Willie, and the likes.
As for the OP, I would not vote for Bill Clinton, and would alomst be willing to move to NY to vote against Hillary!
tradesilicon: What do mean here?
I’ve heard this assertion many times, no one has ever backed it up, mind giving a cite for this.
As for voting for Clinton, nope, Im only reluctantly probably voting for Gore.
Sorry, mangeorge, but even if Slick Willie were eligible for a third term, I would not vote for him. I didn’t vote for him in 1992 and 1996.
stuffinb, here’s one place to start:
White House Publications site
We can go from there.
Ok, Peyote, and all the rest of you who didn’t vote for him in the first place (in spite of the OP).
What if we were to add on more little enticement. What if Clinton were avidly pro-gun? 
Hmmm?
Peace,
mangeorge
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Republican Senator Fred Thompson investigate this wild allegation and fail to find any evidence to support it? Of course, lack of evidence has never stopped Republicans from making wild allegations about Clinton. “Throw enough mud and some of it will stick,” seems to be the philosophy.
Clinton obviously has personal failings, but his policies are correct. I am more concerned with a man’s politics than with his personal life.
Oh yeah, and as for the perjury nonsense, please allow me to split a legal hair. It’s only perjury if the testimony is material to the case at hand. How is testimony about consensual sex between Monica and Bill remotely relevant to the allegation that he forced sexual contact on Paula Jones?
I didn’t vote for him the first two times, why in the heck would I even consider a third? Please. They only thing that has improved is that the upper class is getting richer. The poor aren’t being helped, corporations are getting away with murder, and I don’t see anything really happening in the education sector.
All politicans care about is the economy. If that’s going great, no one will care about anything else.
There is a big difference between these two lack of evidence findings:
(1) You cannot gain access to a box of evidence.
and
(2) Given a box of evidence, you can find nothing incriminating therein.
My understanding is that Fred Thompson was confronted with number (1).
My understanding is that Senator Thompson was granted access to PART of the evidence, some of which was so incriminating that when shown to Democratic critics, silenced them immediately.
Granted, things move pretty slowly in Washington, but the good Senator continues to struggle in his quest to get to all of the evidence.
Yes, I would vote for him again. I think he’s been a very effective president.
However, Reagan’s two terms were enough to terrify me… please don’t make me think of horrors like a third term under him!
Libertarian wrote:
and SouthernStyle wrote:
Citations, gentlemen? Or are the two of you just slinging mud wildly? What “box of evidence” are you talking about? What evidence is this that supposedly “silenced” Democratic critics? (I can’t believe Fred Thompson would have failed to reveal such evidence immediately–if it really existed.)
If there’s evidence of bribery, as the two of you suggest (and which I believe to be a ludicrous assertion), why is Clinton still sitting in the White House? Sounds like more of the SOS from the Republican camp.
Do you really think Clinton and/or Gore would knowingly accept a “bribe” from the Chinese communists? Come on! You boys need to get up out of the mud, now.
spoke-
Since your question is “…do you think Clinton…” my answer is yes. I believe the Clintons would (and have) done anything it takes to gain and keep power.
I believe they’ll take money from anyone.
Tradesilicon I see a liost of Executive orders, but that doesn’t address the question. You said he abused the previlege. As far as i can tell he about typical for any two-term president. In fact you must have really hated Reagan. Try this site for why I say that.
It’s allways seemed to me that C/G are being held to a higher standard than R/B. I don’t remember people saying these kinda things when Reagan developed temporary amenesia during their scandal.
Oops, here’s the cite
Mangeorge: No, I would not vote for Clinton if he were pro-gun.
Stuffinb: Could it be possible that Clinton/Gore are catching so much flak because Bill promised the most ethical administration in history? Granted, Slck Willie is not the AntiChrist or the worst president we’ve had, but I hardly think even a majority of his supporters would characterize his administration as squeaky clean.
spoke-: Last year, my Congressman, John Hostettler, Rep.-Eighth District, gave me and some fellow Hoosiers a synopsis of a House committee’s probings of some of the allegations against Slick Willie. Hostettler is a dimbulb, but if even a third of the things in his report are true, it appears some serious questions need to be asked about Chinese influence in this adminstration. If I can find the time this weekend (I have to work Saturday and I am going to party hearty Sunday and Monday), I will try to find that synopsis, provided I still have it.
Also, spoke-, not to split legal hairs, but it’s perjury if one lies under oath.