Regardless of who’s ideas they were, Clinton made them happen. Welfare reform? Clinton made it happen. How long had the republicans been talking about that? Republicans talk a good game about reining in government spending, balancing budgets and so on, but Clinton made it happen. He did it by working with his opposition, not by insulting them.
I’ve had similar feelings off and on since the Clinton-hatred peaked before the impeachment hearings. It seems as though some segment of us in the US need something or someone to vilify and hate intensely. A national scapegoat. ‘Commies’, Earl Warren, Clinton, Liberals, and whatever comes next. It seems to go far beyond rationality, it’s almost an addiction to vilification.
Around 1995, there was a cartoon in the ‘Funny Times’ – a little kid was telling his dad, “Daddy, Daddy – there’s a communist under my bed!”
His dad replied – “there there, son, I’m sure there’s not a communist under your bed… it’s probably an artist, or a homosexual.”
Also:
"A conservative with no enemies must
a) Find an enemy;
b) Create an enemy;
c) Cease to be a conservative"
Bullshit. It also never happened until the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives.
Again, please back up your assertion that these things were Clinton’s doing and the Republicans were just tagging along for the ride. These were Republican ideas, passed by Republicans with Clinton’s approval. There was no movement towards these changes until Republicans took control of Congress.
Neurotik, I agree completely that they were conservative ideas. And Clinton was definitely pushed to the right by Republicans.
But being a Democrat, Clinton had considerable insulation against charges that he hated the poor. So liberals in Congress were willing to go along with things that they wouldn’t have had they been proposed by Reagan or Bush.
In much the same way that only a seasoned cold warrior like Nixon had the credibility to open up dialog with the PRC, Clinton was a part of enacting these conservative reforms – both Clinton and the Republicans were crucial to the process.
They do love creating new taxes.
Once a tax or a project (which requires funding) is in place, it takes an unreasonable amount of effort to stop or even reduce it.
People cry all the time when their project money is cut. Look at all the small nickel and dime taxes we have in this country. Try and take even the most insignificant one off the books and you will get a political uproar. Its very easy to start the money spending, a lot of it gets rolled in with other projects and bills. Often times the public is not aware of the new spending until its too late. But try to take the money away and you get all this friction.
Since the democrats are more likely to call for a government program, or for more money for an existing one, they benefit more from them. Hence, They Love New Taxes.
Projects=funding=taxes
A=B=C
If you like A then you must like C
Like Star wars implementation, war with Iraq, a re-bloated military, or Government subsidized temple construction ? Pubbies like to spend money too, They just don’t like paying for things, which is why deficits skyrocket every time they get control of the budget.
The real dichotomy here is between tax and spend democrats, and tax less, spend more republicans.
-Clinton’s tax policies make for very poor evidence that he was a bad president.
I don’t suppose you’ve heard of this new thing they have going on in Washington called “the Department of Homeland Security”. It’s big, it’s expensive, and IMO it’s unnecessary. But we all know that a big, clumsy, expensive proposal would never go through in a frugal Republican administration. After all Republicans are fiscally responsible, and they’ll balance the budget, pay down our debt, and we’ll end up with a surplus. Yippee!
Uh. Nevermind.
They wouldn’t have been done if he hadn’t signed the legislation. He kept vetoing welfare reform until it was the way he wanted it to be. Did it start as a republican idea? Sure. Who can forget Ronald Reagan’s mythical “welfare queen”? But in the twelve years the republicans held the White House before Clinton all they did with welfare was use it to bash the democrats. Welfare reform was a good idea, a popular idea, Clinton saw that, and he worked with Congress to hammer out legislation.
And where did I say “Republicans were just tagging along for the ride”? That’s right, I didn’t.
Furthermore, I never said they were his ideas. I said “regardless of whose ideas they were”. That doesn’t mean I think they were solely his.
And balancing the budget? Cutting taxes is republican SOP. Never mind that spending never goes anywhere but up. Deficit spending is the republican norm, and that’s where we are today.
“the Department of Homeland Security”?
As I see it it is a huge clumsy proposal. But it is supposed to take the place of and streamline many smaller clumsy departments. In thoery anyway.
Squink, what we need is a republican democrat, so we can reduce the deficit and reduce spending. Aint gonna happen. IMHO higher taxes are way more toxic than a high deficit.
As I said earlier, Taxes are impossible to stop, spending money you don`t have is easier to not do.
For the record, I think Clinton is far from an idiot. I think he’s incredibly intelligent - certainly above GWB in terms of raw intellect - and he’s undoubtedly a brilliant politician. Perceived lack of wit plays no part in my detesting the man, nor does his polciies, no matter how I disagree with them. There are many people with more leftist agendas than Clinton whom I nevertheless respect very much. With Clinton, it’s all about the person behind the presidency. As someone once said (I forget who), he’s not the worst president we’ve ever had, but he’s the worst man ever to be president.
Jeff
Even if that were true (to a certain point; I don’t think I would tolerate a convicted murderer or child molester being elected President), this goes to one of the fundamental, and seemingly irreconcilable, schisms we seem to be having on this thread: separating the Man from the Job.
Some of us can do it. Others can’t. And therein lies much of the disagreement, IMHO. This is probably incredibly obvious to a lot of people, but I felt it was worth stating.
I had thought that the definition of an idiot is one that can only do what it is told and nothing else (alas the dictionary disputes that definition) for it that were true then as the ultimate politician, Clinton acted the part very well. I will not dispute his background, his education or his qualifications. It just makes all the more sadder. Which is better, a highly intelligent, witty, charming waiter adept in taking any order efficiently with great finesse or a low brow construction supervisor who makes skyscrappers?
I am going to quibble here. Pres Clinton “told an untruth under oath”, which is different from “perjury”. Note that not even a criminal inditement (let alone a conviction) for “perjury” was forthcoming from the dudes who hated Bill so very much. Why?- because they knew he’d be exonerated. His “lying” might possibly fit under the legal definition of perjury, but it did not coming even within a light year of dudes who were normally convicted of said crime.
IANAL but in order for a falsehood under oath to rise to perjury it must be “deliberate” and “material”. “Material” is certainly questionable.
IMHO- Starr also set Clinton up. He knew all about the Monica thing, and likely fed the other attorneys some info- so they worded their odd & tortured “definition” of “sexual intercourse” in such a way that Bill could rightly, answer “No”. This then allowed Starr & co to bring in the whole Monica thing. “…set up like a bowling pin…”. Read the definition someday, and you’ll see that it doesn’t really cover having someone just pleasure YOU- and I think it was worded that way on purpose.
I was waiting for somebody to say that - thank you.
Clinton did nothing to balance the budget. After a couple years in office the republican’s gained control of congress - that IS where the budget/spending/appropriations happens, the budget was balanced. But Clinton takes the credit.
No New Taxes? - The Dem’s in congress added on to the budget causing a new need for more taxes. President Bush added the tax because it was needed to cover all the Dem’s programs. It was the best thing for the situation - not his situation but he did it any way knowing it would not be popular.
I do not believe Clinton would make a decision based on what would be the right or best thing to do. I believe he would make his decision based on would it be good for me and my legacy, or would it make me look good/popular.
Rhodes Scholar!?!? - the genius was tossed out of school!
Ban Assault weapons??? - False, the bans Clinton supported were on guns that looked like assault weapons - did nothing about real assault weapons - not that there is a problem with those guns any way.
It was not about getting a blow job!!!
The wrongs of things like Iran/Contra were not about personal criminal activity like the things going on with the Clinton’s
Your right in part, peddling cocaine and selling weapons of mass destruction to members of the axis of evil in order to support an undeclared and illegal war aren’t “personal” crimes, they’re treason. I guess even that’s more forgivable than being a democrat in a country that’s supposed to be ruled by republicans.
My trouble with Clinton is his personal reckless behavior. I’m no prude, and I don’t particularly care whether or not he had sexual relations with someone other than his wife. What I object to is the double standard that he got away with. Consider this: if any mayor, governor, county prosecutor or Fortune 500 company president received oral sex from an intern while supposedly at work in his office such an official would be universally and correctly lambasted for shameful behavior, dereliction of duty while on the job and for recklessly subjecting his employer to a potentially huge sexual harassment suit. What’s good enough for them should be good enough for The President of the United States, but apparently that’s not the case.
It’s not the (oral) sex per se that I find objectionable, it’s where he had it and with whom he had it. If he’d taken a non-government-issue bimbo to bed with him in the personal residence upstairs at the White House and lied about it on TV afterward, I wouldn’t care a bit, but I remain aghast that Clinton so stupidly and brazenly chose to fool around with a subordinate while on the job, and while he was already defending a lawsuit from previous similar conduct. As someone who thinks the legal standards should be the same for everyone, the powerful in office and the run of the mill proletariat alike, it greatly annoys me that Clinton so obviously skated on this. It greatly annoys me that Clinton was allowed to lie under oath about his conduct, and it annoys me that my fellow Democrats in Congress went along with allowing Clinton to frame the matter in his impeachment trial as his political opponents’ personal attack upon his private behavior, rather than as the reprehensible behavior by a public official while acting in his official capacity that it was, activity that would’ve gotten any other lower level governmental official the boot.
I know that there was so much to choose from in your wonderful post. Most of it mindless diatribe - but this one, I just have to ask. What in the hell are you talking about? He was in fact a Rhodes Scholar, regardless of your creative (and very compelling) punctuation. When was he kicked out of school?
From CNN:
Apparently he did do something to balance the budget. Didn’t he?
come on…you can admit it…I won’t tell anyone
Let’s see.
DR. DETH, thanks for the info on the legalities of perjury.
Hmmm, add me to the list of those who don’t think WJC is a “god.”
As for the issue of “who gets credit for what was accomplished”–
a) if “I couldn’t do it because Congress wouldn’t let me” is not accepted as a Presidential excuse, then by the same token we shouldn’t withhold our praise when a President signs legislation originated by the opposition.
b) the same goes for handling the economy.
c) and let’s remember that WJC is a self-avowed third-way-er, not a typical liberal Democrat–that’s why typical liberal Democrats backstabbed him; thus he arguably got what he wanted all along FROM THE OPPOSITION (which they wouldn’t have given him if they’d only known…).
d) and and–on that list of mine, I don’t see more than a couple things that were pets of the GOP. (Gays and lesbians? Haiti? Repositioning the Democrats? Multinational military intervention in Europe? etc.)