WRONG,
What we need is a President who acts on his campaign pledges, does what he says he will, and does not lie directly to our faces.
Clinton was the BEST politician, but that doesn`t make him a great leader, the two are seperable.
Well, let’s see. A list refuting your list.
When Clinton launched missile attacks against both Iraq and Afghanistan, he was accused of “wagging the Dog” by Republicans in congress. Do you also hate Reagan for not doing anything in Beirut after the Marine Corps barracks bombing there?
The inspectors were not “booted” they left. It was the decision of the UN. Moreover, as Hussein has shown no inclination to re-arm, then what is the problem here?
I assume here that you are talking about the Brady bill and assault weapons ban, which I can not imagine is “assinine” by any stretch of the imagination. These are popular bills and are supported by the majority of the American public cite
First of all, why should I give two hoots if a guy gets a hummer in his office. My biggest problem is that he lied about it. However, I hardly think that is amoral behavior. Stupid: yes, Amoral: No
At least he tried to do something which in my mind is far better than not trying at all.
As has been pointed out, Ruby Ridge happened under a previous administration. Waco was just plain stupid. No argument here.
Nope. Didn’t happen. Check your facts. More Military cuts happened during the previous Bush administration than during the Clinton Administration.cite
This is just plain stupid and not worthy of comment.
Very much unlike the MFN status given to China under the current administration?
Ohhhh layer speak! Not that. You do realize the guy was an attorney, right?
Show me a president who isn’t and I’ll show you…well nothing. Presidents are indeed supposed to listen to the people and make decisions based upon those opinions. This is what their job is all about.
WOW what a coincidence! A crummy economy coming in, and a crummy economy going out. How does that work! What a lucky sap!
I don’t suppose that this had any connection with the rise in popularity of the internet? Nah, blame Clinton!
This is just stupid.
Or…maybe there was nothing there. After all, Starr did spend over 40 million taxpayer dollars and couldn’t find anything.
quote
Show me a president who isn’t and I’ll show you…well nothing. Presidents are indeed supposed to listen to the people and make decisions based upon those opinions. This is what their job is all about.
So, if the majority speak then the President should do as they say?
I believe the latest polls show a slight edge towards pro-life.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by light strand *
** Very much unlike the MFN status given to China under the current administration?**[/QUOTE
I find most of this thread humorous, both sides are being pretty ridiculous.
As for this - Clinton was the one who removed the link between China’s trade status and non-trade issues like human rights. Now, I have no problem with this and it was the right thing to do, IMO. But the thing that bugs me about it is that he did it after criticizing Bush for proposing the same thing in the '92 election.
Carry on with the silliness.
…and your point would be…?
There are many reasons why I think Clinton was a poor president, but most of those have already been covered. None of those reasons, though, really explain why I think the man is slime.
See, the President is more than just the leader of our military and a guy who can veto legislation. He is the most powerful, and most important man in the nation - no - the world. This is a man that people look up to. They look to him for guidance. He is a moral compass. And he damn well knows it.
The people look to the President to get cues on what is acceptable. Yeah, the hardcore democrats don’t look up to republican presidents, and vice versa, but most people aren’t hardcore pubs or dems, they’re just people. And they look to the President, and they see the paragon of human achievement. They see the man that all people should strive to be - someone to be respected, someone to be emulated. He is the ultimate role model.
As Role Model Number One, the President has certain responsibilities. One of these is to not be a lecherous, deceitful slimebag. Clinton couldn’t manage this. He cheated on his wife, in the Oval Office, while talking to foreign diplomats. Then he lied about it, to his wife (I assume), and to the public. He not only lied, he asked how dare these blatantly partisan hacks accuse him of something so low as adultery. Only - whoops - the accusations were all true. So he apologized, smirking the whole time. I know of not a single person who saw that apology and thought Clinton meant a word of it.
Oh, and there’s more. In addition to lying about it to us, the people, the ones who get their moral cues from him, he told Monica to lie under oath. He himself lied under oath. So, let’s tally it up, shall we? Our Moral Compass has shown that it’s okay to:
- Cheat on your wife.
- Not take your job seriously.
- Lie about cheating.
- Convince others to lie about your cheating.
- Show utter disrespect for the laws of the country he’s supposed to be in charge of.
- Display a complete lack of remorse about all of these things.
He trivialized his job, he trivialized his role, and he trivialized the position of President of the United States. He spent eight years teaching us to be cynical about the Presidency, and that being a slime is okay, as long as you’re powerful. And of course, the democrats helped him out here, by falling behind him in dutiful support, chastising anyone who dared say “Hey, this guy is a pig.” So not only did Clinton disgrace himself and his office, he disgraced his party, and dragged them down to his level.
Pathetic.
Disgusting.
And yet still, people fall all over themselves to assert what a great guy he is.
Did I mention “pathetic”?
Jeff
Although I can’t say I hate him, I have more of a low level contempt-disgust-dissapointment kinda of feeling for him. And I certainly did not start out that way.
I loved the emphasis on economic growth, and tax cuts for the middle class, and the “outsider” themes of his first campaign. And then the first act of WJC’s administration “Gays in the military”, second act “No money for a middle class tax cut”, third act “the rose garden speech with dems from congress smiling in the background and WJC kissing their ass”, wtf? What happened to the guy I voted for?
For me at least, it didn’t get any better from there. Every time he said anything I would grumble “Yeah right, let’s wait until next week and see what you say then”. I am sad to say I was proven right nearly every single time.
whuckfistle, Well since this is a constitutional issue. No. The constitution and policy are two different things. Moreover, the majority of americans are not pro-life (66% say abortions should be legal in the first trimester), they are pro restrictions cite
Heh. 3-way simulpost.
Icarus pointed out,
Good point. I hadn’t actually thought about that. As has been pointed out above, “Impeach Clinton” bumper stickers came out long before the biggest scandals. I wonder what case they could have made, but I suppose it’s not in the cards for a bumper sticker to give a properly-footnoted legal brief. 
I remember people hating him for a being a “draft dodger” (I seem to remember draft dodging being illegal and Clinton’s actions being legal; I guess I just need to lengthen my list of missing word definitions). Being a draft dodger made him “soft on defense” pretty much automatically. Being a war veteran didn’t seem to make McGovern (or Kerry or Kerrey, for that matter) automatically not soft on defense, for some reason, but it went a long way for Bush senior.
Let’s recap:
Reagan was so great because he was a statesman (\States"man, n.; pl. Statesmen. 1. A man versed in public affairs and in the principles and art of government; especially, one eminent for political abilities. - Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary). The reverence of him by the infallible American people during the Iran-Contra, Pierce/HUD, and Edwin Meese scandals is a case in point. No matter how much the opposition - who stupidly opposed him in spite of his popularity - dogged him with “criticism”, the people still loved him.
Clinton was horrible because he was a politician (\Pol`i*ti"cian, n. [Cf. F. politicien.] 1. One versed or experienced in the science of government; one devoted to politics; a statesman. - Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary). The obsequious love of him by the fickle American people during the Lewinsky/Willey, Whitewater, and China scandals is a case in point. No mater how much the opposition - who bravely opposed him in spite of his popularity - doggedly criticized him, the “people” still loved him.
George W. Bush is wonderful because he has fought the organizations which attacked the World Trade Center in 2001 with some success: many of the “foot soldiers” of terrorism have been caught (granted many of the leaders - who are fiendishly difficult to catch - remain at large).
Clinton is horrible because he has fought the organizations which attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 without complete success: the biggest leaders of Islamist terrorist organization - who planned both WTC attack and many others - remained at large (granted, some of the “foot soldiers” were caught, but they are easy to catch).
Reagan armed religious fundamentalists in Afganistan in the 1980s. Many of these same people were outraged by Bush senior stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. They attacked the U.S. under Bush junior in 2001. This is clearly Clinton’s fault.
More accurate, techinically speaking, than “booted”, but the connotation of the word “booted” isn’t too far off. The UN inspectors didn’t just up and leave because they thought their job was done. They left because Saddam so impeded their work as to make further inspections pointless. In this sense, it was Saddam who effectively ended the inspections, not the UN.
There should have been some reaction to this be the US. At the very least there should have been some posturing and implicit threats by the US. But we didn’t even get that - we just got a nod and a shrug from Clinton. I suppose there could be a good reason, though. Perhaps Clinton was getting his knob polished by an intern when he got the call, and the whole issue slipped his mind.
No, actually. If the point of the Presidency was just to enact the will of the majority, we wouldn’t need a President at all - we would just run polls, and enact laws according to the results. The President should follow the will of the people to some extent, but he should also be a leader and a visionary. That entails sometimes doing things that don’t have popular support, but that still need to be done.
To be fair, the economy wasn’t crummy coming in. The recession ended before Clinton set foot in office, and the economic boom of the 90’s had already begun its early stages. However, I’m not one who believes that Clinton had much to do with the economy either way - he wasn’t responsible for the good, or for the bad. He may have slightly stunted growth with his raising of taxes, but I think the overall effect was minor.
Oh, and as far as China, I think the biggest problems were both his selling of US military technology to China - not exactly one our staunch allies - and his acceptance of Chinese campaign contributions. And I’m sure there was no connection there.
Jeff
“WRONG,
What we need is a President who acts on his campaign pledges, does what he says he will, and does not lie directly to our faces.”
You’ve just identified criteria for a saint, not a President. And no saint is ever going to be elected to any office, nor would he or she want to be so elected.
ElJeffe wrote,
I’m not trying to debate here - I’m honestly curious. What would you consider an example of this?
“I overall approved of his presidency.”
“I really had no problem with him as President.”
“I don’t have anything against him and would have voted for him…”
“Clinton inspired so much more confidence than Bush.”
“[His anti-terrorists efforts in the wake of WTC '93 are] better than nothing…”
It sounds to me like the tone on this thread on the part of the (relatively) pro-Clinton types is one of qualified support for most the results his administration achieved, and an unwillingness to see him as a peculiarly bad individual. People don’t generally talk about what a “great guy he is”. He wasn’t a kindly, avuncular actor, he didn’t belong to any Yale societies with cool names, and his dad wasn’t President. He wasn’t a good husband, thin, from an urbanized state, or sexually repressed.
In fact, his personal qualities are pretty much irrelevant to our evaluation of his Presidency. It seems like most of have remained pretty solidly upright when evaluating him. But maybe I’m missing what it is you’re talking about.
Well, as a New Yorker, it sure is something to me.
Regarding his actions, or inactions, what was the prevailing recommendation for action at the time?
Exactly what article of the Constitution says this???
What you are describing is more along the lines of a monarch. This is America. We don’t have those.
Well, to be fair, I was at a Dem fund raising event and Terry McAuliffe introduced the Clintons as the greatest president in the history of our country and the greatest senator in the history of our country. We don’t have a rolleyes big enough.
He is the head of the DNC, but still…
Well, if the doctor used medical jargon to lie in court, yes, we should hang him.
Theres Teddy Roosevelt who used the support of the people to push his policies thru congress (not the other way around) and Abe Lincoln whose unpopular policies split the nation. Both did what they thought was right with what they knew, not with what the public generally thinks it knows.
Reagan isn’t admired because he was a great politician. He’s admired because he was a great visionary who had a knack for putting things in simple terms, rather than muddling everything up with morally relativistic shades of gray. Russia wasn’t this country that had a very complicated history that we should explore before we pass any judgement, they were the Evil Empire. They were the Bad Guy. He had a moral clarity that was invigorating. And his Kennedy-like approach to tax cuts certainly helped our opinion of him.
Do you really see no difference between trying a few suspects in US criminal courts, and using our military to try to tear down the entire terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan? Further, while we haven’t gotten bin Laden, we have still nabbed a helluva lot of al Qaeda bigwigs.
Jeff
I’m sorry, but I disagree with this on the same grounds as Capt. Murdock. The President of the U.S. is an executive and a civillian. He’s not our king, and he’s not our dad. He’s an elected official charged with leading one of our three branches of government. I think our country would do well to get out from under the “presidential mystique” that requires us to revere the president as a monarch, which he clearly is not.
Jeff, do you honestly believe that Bush would have gone after al queda if the WTC attack hadn’t happened?
According to Newsweek he was warned by the Clinton administration to watch out for them when he first came into office and shrugged it off as his hand-off policy in the mid-east. I certainly am not blaming him, but I do think that you must realize that hindsight is 20/20
I’d just like to say that I’m lovin this thread.
And I miss bill so much it gives me tummyaches. Especially when I hear or see GW.