And of course, we wouldn’t want to forget -
But the point is that the Clinton Administration had plenty of achievements, some people just choose to ignore them.
—But Clinton is the first President since Nixon to stand up on national TV, shake his finger in my face, and lie thru his teeth.—
Oh, give me a break: “As I told the American public in Chicago…”
Or, with a straight face, telling us that he had never been breifed on any specific terrorist threats prior to 9/11?
Politicians lie on TV all the time. It’s always wrong and detestable. But if you’re only going to care or notice when it’s “the other side” what sort of credibility do you have in calling attention to a lie? Are you really demonstrating that you care about honesty as a value, or is honesty simply another bludgeon to be used today, outlawed as “unpatriotic” tommorow?
—The difference being - the only difference - is that the media liked him (he is a Democrat), and therefore he was allowed to get away with it.—
Good grief, Clinton’s impeachment was a media circus. You’re being ridiculous. The public liked his administration, and the media HATED him. The media predicted time and time again that he would be ousted, that he had broken the last straw, that hsi career was done. It was the public that stood by him (for good or for ill).
—Thank God for the Reagan recovery. It allowed the country to survive even Clinton.—
This is just disingenous. There is no evidence of a recovery led by Reagan’s policies extending into Clinton’s terms. For goodness sake, the economy tanked right after Reagan’s presidency… at which time I’m sure such an honest stand-up guy was happy to lump all the blame on poor Bush Sr. for “screwing up the conservative revolution” as allt he pundits did back then.
If any President is to credit for the recovery that helped Clinton, it was Bush Sr. being brave enough to stand up to his own party (probably at the cost of the Presidency).
But in reality, Presidents and even tax incentives aren’t all that much to blame or credit for the short-term fortunes of the economy in the first place. Even the long term effects of programs as radical as Reagan’s simply failed to show up: for all his supply side nonsense, and all his tax cutting, he never managed to get growth or productivity to turn around. Alan Greenspan is the only real hero/villian worth looking for to explain the economy’s more noticeable fortunes, and even he is hard to dislike too much, since he’s essentially playing roulette with only minimal precognitive suspicions on what to do. 
Give me a break, ITR Champion and Shodan.
Clinton was an average president who was really well-liked. He did some good things, like negotiating the NAFTA side-agreements and getting NAFTA going. The Family Medical Leave law is also a pretty darn impressive achievement of Clinton.
Balancing the budget was a joint effort that neither side can claim as their own achievement.
I don’t think the 100,000 new police officers had much to do with falling crime rates. Unless you can provide a cite. My guess is they were a product of a good economy. Which neither side can claim credit for.
Clinton also made some big mistakes. He and his top cabinet members gave the order to blow up a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory over the objections of lower members of the state department and based on shaky evidence. And I think he was hypocritical in divorcing Chinese human rights abuses from trade rights, even though I agree with the policy, because he castigated Bush for doing the same thing during the campaign.
But really, Clinton wasn’t too bad. Not great, not near great, but not bad. Had some good policy achievements. Had some mistakes. Mostly just presided calmly over a good economy and didn’t do anything to mess it up.
December,
Where do I start? Ahh yes, the Christmas tree decorated according to Aldrich with dildos and other sexual toys, as ordered and supervised by Hillary. Now in this day and age, I am sure that if something THAT outrageous was on display in the White House thatsomeone would have taken a picture of it and it would have been printed somewhere in some newspaper or magazine or on a website.
But no such photo has ever turned up.
As for the “rumor” about Clinton sneaking out of the White House to have affairs, Aldrich reported it as truth. But, if you read David Brock’s new book, you will find out that gee, Aldrich’s “source” for the above mentioned rumor was Brock himself. When Brock found out that Aldrich was stating this as fact, he called Aldrich and asked him what the hell he was doing and that it was in no way true, but was merely an example of the types of rumors that conservatives were spreading about Clinton. Aldrich’s response was not to take the offedning and untrue section out of the book but rather to screech and bleat that Brock was out to kill sales of Aldrich’s book.
Also, you would think that a book like Aldrich’s would have foootnotes or endnotes of some kind, but I guess it’s silly to think that. :rolleyes:
Shodan,
“Gays in the military.”
What ab out them. There sure as hell were gays in the military before Clinton was President, hell there were gays in the military before Clinton was born!!!
During WWII Isenhower found out that one of his army nurses was a lesbian and after he told his secretary that the nurse was going to be dishonorabley discharged, his secretary informed him that if he did that then he would end up having to replace about 20% of the nurses in the armed forces. So, Ike quickly dropped that from his agenda.
Paul Krugman is right to keep reminding people of how his administration bailed out Mexico. The Clinton administration took a very huge political risk in that case to what really was the right thing: and it paid off in spades. As usual, all the people who said it was a horrible stupid move for which we would all pay dearly never mentioned the subject again after it became clear that not only had the effort saved Mexico’s economy, but it had paid for itself by keeping the country from defaulting on its loans in addition to paying back the money used to bail them out.
Whatever else was wrong with the administration, this action was truly laudable, and a rare thing in politics.
It is becoming abundantly clear that Clinton and his secretary of the treasury (Robert Rubin) presided over a total swindle of the American people. This pair allowed the shady bookkeeping practices and outright decption, that is now causing the melt-down on All Stree. When your 401 K portfolio soon becomes worthless, you have Bill Clinto to thank!
Think of him wgilst you revise your retirement plans…because of him (this jackass), I’m now planning to work untill age 77!
THANK YOU BILL CLINTON!-NOT!
Oh please ** ralph124c**!
Arthur Levitt, President Bill Clinton’s SEC chairman, made a proposal to prohibit accounting firms from providing consulting services to audit clients. Performing both roles, Leavitt argued, is a conflict of interest that jeopardizes audit integrity.
However, this proposal was defeated by, among others, Harvey Pitt. The name may not be familiar to you, but he was the attorney for Arthur Andersen, among other accounting agencies.
So, you may ask, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, perhaps the name Harvey Pitt would sound more familiar if I told you that Bush appointed him to head the SEC. He STILL doesn’t believe that accounting firms need to sever their competing interests.
Moreover, Bush still doesn’t believe that reforms such as declaring stock options as expenses are necessary, despite the urgings of Greenspan, and Buffet. (as reported in Newsweek 1 July 2002), and Chaney headed Halliburton during the period when it altered it’s auditing practices, for which it is currently being investigated by the SEC (this last part is irrelevant, but I thought I’d throw it in).
So feel free to blame Clinton for lowering the collective morals of the country, but don’t blame him for your investment problems.
Obligitory cite: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2002/nf20020219_2045.htm
Oh. I forgot about that one, Apos. Mark that down on the Clinton achievement side.
Well, if you’re sure, then that settles it for you. But, why should I be sure?
You disbelieve this story because it’s outrageous. Well, it’s outrageous for White House staffers to pull W keys off of computer keyboards, but that was confirmed.
Well, I read Aldrich’s book and my memory is that he specifically said this was a rumor. What’s your evidence that Aldrich reported it as truth? Did you read Aldrich’s book?
David Brock – what a source! “Doggonnit, I just noticed that everything I’ve written for the last 20 years was a lie.” :smack:
“But now I’m telling the full truth.” :rolleyes:
Huh? He was writing about things he had personally seen, except for the one rumor he said was a rumor.
Oh really? Aldrich wrote as fact, about various incidents of homosexual and lesbian sex that had supposedly taken place A) In a WH office and in the women’s gym shower. Had Aldrich personally seen either of these alleged incidents?
No, they were both 2nd hand accounts and Aldrich very convieniently fails to provide the name of the persons who told him these "stories.
How convienient.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A lot of conservatives wn’t let go of Bill Clinton for the same reason many on the Left won’t stop slamming Ronald Reagan: sheer frustration!
Reagan and Clinton had a LOT in common, as I’ve noted on these boards before. To wit:
Ideologues in their paties ADORED them, even though they almost never did any of the things True Believers hoped they would.
Ideologues of the other parties LOATHED them, eve though they never did the things their rabid enemies FEARED they’d do.
Their wives were even more despised than they were. Their opponents were convinced the First Ladies were evil, and the “real” power beind the throne.
Both their administrations were plagued with scandal… but they themselves were never touche by it. They were so charming and so likeable, all they ever had to do was smile and say “I don’t recall anything about that,” and the American people were ready to forgive and forget. Oh sure, their close friends and advisors regularly fell on their swords, but they themselves were blessed with Teflon.
Reagan and Clinton were like the Roadrunner, and their enemies were like Wile E. Coyote. Anyone who tried to hold them accountable for their misdeeds came across as petty, mean, vindictive and foolish- ask Ken Starr or Laurence Walsh. Their enemies were continually thinking, “We’ve got him now! THS time we’re going to show the people how evil they are. THIS time they’ll see.”
But the people never DID see! In the end, both Reagan and Clinton served two terms, and left office with high approval ratings. Hey, America was prosperous and at peace! Why WOULDN’T the people love them?
And THAT’S what galls their enemies. To their enemies, it appears that the “bad guys” won. Neither Reagan nor Clinton will EVER get the punishment or comeuppance their enemies think they deserved. And it’s infuriating for some people to face that fact.
A lot of conservatives wn’t let go of Bill Clinton for the same reason many on the Left won’t stop slamming Ronald Reagan: sheer frustration!
Reagan and Clinton had a LOT in common, as I’ve noted on these boards before. To wit:
Ideologues in their paties ADORED them, even though they almost never did any of the things True Believers hoped they would.
Ideologues of the other parties LOATHED them, eve though they never did the things their rabid enemies FEARED they’d do.
Their wives were even more despised than they were. Their opponents were convinced the First Ladies were evil, and the “real” power beind the throne.
Both their administrations were plagued with scandal… but they themselves were never touche by it. They were so charming and so likeable, all they ever had to do was smile and say “I don’t recall anything about that,” and the American people were ready to forgive and forget. Oh sure, their close friends and advisors regularly fell on their swords, but they themselves were blessed with Teflon.
Reagan and Clinton were like the Roadrunner, and their enemies were like Wile E. Coyote. Anyone who tried to hold them accountable for their misdeeds came across as petty, mean, vindictive and foolish- ask Ken Starr or Laurence Walsh. Their enemies were continually thinking, “We’ve got him now! THS time we’re going to show the people how evil they are. THIS time they’ll see.”
But the people never DID see! In the end, both Reagan and Clinton served two terms, and left office with high approval ratings. Hey, America was prosperous and at peace! Why WOULDN’T the people love them?
And THAT’S what galls their enemies. To their enemies, it appears that the “bad guys” won. Neither Reagan nor Clinton will EVER get the punishment or comeuppance their enemies think they deserved. And it’s infuriating for some people to face that fact.
Probably one of the best posts in this threat. Bravo, astorian.
I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment.
Well said, Astorian. Apart from the congratulatory posts for you, you killed this thread
astorian, yes, that was well-said, but unfortunately it ignores some pretty important differences. There was never a significant current of Reagan-hating on a personal level. Even those who thought his policies and practices were generally doing great damage to the country, the world, and democracy, and were blatantly hypocritical and short-sighted, never hated him. Even Tip O’Neill, for instance, commented “Give Reagan his due. He would have made a helluva king.”
But the well-organized, well-financed hate campaign against Clinton personally was led by those who should have liked and admired, and even did like and admire, the results he produced.
Since we’re only talking about perceptions here, we needn’t even get into the facts about budget-balancing, or support of oppressive terror regimes, or numbers of indictments and convictions of administration staffers, etc. As Reagan himself said, “Facts are stupid things.”
astorian hits some good points, but overlooks one of the biggest differences between the two – Reagan’s policies were a direct appeal to the extremists in his party, while Clinton took the extreme left-wing for granted and pretty much gave them the shaft.
If Clinton had been running as a moderate Republican, he could have pressed for the same policies he did, but would have not been vilified by the right while doing so.
Elvis- I’m not surprised you’d insist that the cases aren’t really similar. Ideologues rarely think they’re ideologues, and you’re no exception. But to pretend there was no PERSONAL animosity toward the Reagans on the Left is silly and dishonest.
We always dislike our political rivals, but we don’t always despise them, and we don’t al;ways spiut on the ground when their names are mentioned. Conservatives certainly didn’t like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis, but they didn’t inspire venom and loathing. Bill Clinton and the Kennedy family did. Similarly, liberals never liked Gerald Ford or George Bush the Elder, but they never sent liberal into violent frenzies. Ronald Reagan did.
And, like it or not, Reagan-haters and Clinton-haters WERE both obsessive in their futile search for ways to bring down their foes, and utterly ineffectual in doing so.
Now, it’s a safe bet that Ken Starr didn’t view himself as an obsessive Captain Ahab, any more than Laurence Walsh did. Both were convinced they were going after a slimy lawbreaker. And both were right. But both had the same problem: the great majority of the American people weren’t all that outraged about the crimes involved.
And that, too, is a big part of what galls the enemies of Reagan and Clinton. The PEOPLE loved them, no matter what they did.
We want to believe in democracy, we WANT to believe in the wisdom of the common man, but no matter what our ideologies are, we’re going to find, to our chagrin, that sometimes the common man is an idiot!
Try as they might, the Left never could get the people all that exorcised over Reagan’s arming the contras. And despite their best efforts, the Right could never get people all that interested in either Whitewater or Clinton’s sex life.
And THAT’s galling, too- to realize that “the people” just don’t care about things we care about passionately. That’s the kind of thing that can send people around the bend. Hence, during the 2000 elections, we heard silly liberal celebs vowing to leave America if GWB were elected (the election was such a mess, of course, that we can’t very well hold them to that pledge).
When the politicans we hate are successful, it can make us lose faith entirely in democracy and in the people.
Luckily, things change, and the people have no steady, unchanging ideology. Sooner or later, guys we like win, and we miraculously regain hope and confidence in the wisdom of the people.
astorian, that was another fine piece of partisan rhetoric. It is indeed true that you ideologues rarely realize it.
Now, do you actually have any evidence to support your claim that there was any widespread anti-Reagan (personal, that is, not policy-based) streak? Before you go throwing any more claims of dishonesty about, you might also keep in mind that you’re referring to someone who was not only alive but politically conscious during that time, as I suspect you were not. In short, cite, mi amigo?
“Utterly ineffectual” in “finding something to get Reagan with”? Nuh-uh. Do some research on Iran-Contra, just for one, and you don’t even have to leave this board, before you embarrass yourself further with that desperate attempt to prop up your literary symmetry.
Honesty requires use of fact and reason. I have gotten you started with some of that, but so far you are supplying only bombast, with a sprinkling of insults.
“It’s taking longer than we thought” indeed.
Uhhh…Clinton shafted the left wing? Like with the Assault Weapons Ban? Or the veto over banning late-term abortions? I grant that Clinton was ‘left-center’, but by no means did he abandon the left…
And Elvis, you ask for cites and proofs of personal attacks against Reagan? You mean like the proof you provided regarding personal attacks against Clinton? You mean attacks against his adulterous behavior? Or his purgery? Those wouldn’t be personal attacks, those would be grounded in fact.
And that Iran-Contra occurred, there is no doubt. But the pragmatists and realists among us saw the necessity of such actions, and do not see that as any sort of blemish on President Reagan’s record.