The Clinton Legacy

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by Slim

Here's a little more reality....

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

And from such a reliable source to..............
hey, here is some research:
Google search of "Slim + Gay Porn" got 3,450,000 hits. Gee must be true then

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I don't know much about politics, but heres my take on it.....

Clinton: A wanker dealt a good hand of cards...
Bush: A wanker dealt a bad hand of cards...

Some presidents will be remembered as great, some will be remembered as terrible... and some will just be remembered as men who came on the cards.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

It's not just dems. In my generation, we have gone from John F Kennedy to John F Kerry. We have Gone from Dwight D Eisenhower to George W Bush. At this rate, our children will be voting for plants

Wow, you appear a lot younger online! How do you do it?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I guess its one of those benefits of immaturity.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Clinton: A wanker dealt a good hand of cards...
Bush: A wanker dealt a bad hand of cards...

I must be missing something here, If you are talking personally, Clinton was a backwater hick from ark. Bush was a silver spoon brat that could fall down and have his fall broken by family money and power.
If you are talking politicaly, Clinton inherited the largest national debt in US history. Bush started his term with the largest surplus in US history

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

I guess its one of those benefits of immaturity.

That's so accurate and full of wisdom it is scary

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

I must be missing something here, If you are talking personally, Clinton was a backwater hick from ark. Bush was a silver spoon brat that could fall down and have his fall broken by family money and power.
If you are talking politicaly, Clinton inherited the largest national debt in US history. Bush started his term with the largest surplus in US history

Things were gonna get better for clinton no matter what, and things would be bad for bush, no matter what.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Ess - your post #12 is succint and to the point as always, when you post about politics.

You know, if someone is not swayed by the first 17 points, the 18th will probably not do the trick anyway. Watch out for that carpal tunnel!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Slim]

[snip]
# Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
[snip]

If you believe this, then it's easy to see why you believe Clinton was the 2nd coming. The truth of the matter is that he was along for the ride, and what was happening in the stock market and the global economy during his time in office was not a result of anything he did or didnt do. 90% of what is in Ess's "balanced" list are things that will naturally happen during extremely prosperous times, or the results of things past presidents had done. He was a feel-good leader during feel-good times, and I contend he will be remembered as nothing more than a footnote about impeachemnt in US history textbooks.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

And from such a reliable source to..............
hey, here is some research:
Google search of "Slim + Gay Porn" got 3,450,000 hits. Gee must be true then

When you're done surfing them all, you might want to let your parents know that your NetNanny isnt blocking them.

[pigeonmeister]

If any college kid wants to write an essay acclaiming Clinton's achievements I think they should include eskreemr's last post in the references! Can't really argue with much of that- he did wonders for the economy, but he was lucky to take the reins just at a time of growth and general stabilty. Anyway economics not really my strong point.

In terms of his legacy I would say my choices would be:

1) He was the finest political campaigner the US has ever seen. Put that man in Southern Baptist church and he will be swaying and clapping IN TIME AND WITH RHYTHM- unheard of in the white middle classes. When he had his heart atack before the convention the Democrats were panicking. Has that quality (like early Blair) of speaking in a language people understand and had a natural abilty to put people at ease and forge tight relationships (like Blair re- Kosovo)

2) Maybe that Southerner democrats do better than Northerners in elections.

3) the Neo-Cons- largely a reaction to Clintons miltary cuts and unwillingness to intervene, containment policy in Iraq and his Oslo peace efforts for the Middle East.

4) Probably be remembered in Northern Ireland for his genuine commitment to peace- really was to his credit that one.

5) China's entry into WTO (Chinese not very happy when Chinese embassy bombed in Belgrade though)

6) First US President to visit Vietnam.

7) Kosovo- not finest hour. More about carving a role for NATO and sustaining myth of liberal intervention whilst trying to alay some guilt for inaction 5 years earlier. Most ethnic cleansing happened after the coalition started bombing. Support for KLA questionable. Some genuine good intentions behind this operation though. U.S. mercenaries were training and supplying Croatian troops

8) Dodgy business practises and sex scandals.

9) Did nothing to confront the probelms in South America- supported vicious governments.

10) Peacekeeping- After 'black hawk down' US basically refused peace-keeping duties for UN. Burden currently held by third world countries with US money and training.

I did like this quote of his though: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Things were gonna get better for clinton no matter what, and things would be bad for bush, no matter what.

Do you mean politically?

If so, then you have a very strange view of things.

Presidents, and in general people, are not rememberd for things that happened to them, but how they responded to such situations. 9/11 was a horrible defining moment in US history, but Bush will be judged by his response to the event, not the event itself. Just as the Bush administration took a hit on Katrina in public opinion. Most people aren't blaming the Bush administration for Katrina, but how the administration responded to the event.

And how one responds to an event can be controlled. Clinton didn't have to lie under oath when asked about his sex life, Bush didn't have to overhaul FEMA, didn't have to attack Iraq etc...

But it's a very good idea to not talk of a 'legacy' until much later for the aforementioned reasons...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!


Ess - your post #12 is succint and to the point as always, when you post about politics.

You know, if someone is not swayed by the first 17 points, the 18th will probably not do the trick anyway. Watch out for that carpal tunnel!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Peter,

That was all cut and paste. I looked around various sites and that was the best one.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

If you believe this, then it's easy to see why you believe Clinton was the 2nd coming. The truth of the matter is that he was along for the ride, and what was happening in the stock market and the global economy during his time in office was not a result of anything he did or didnt do. 90% of what is in Ess's "balanced" list are things that will naturally happen during extremely prosperous times, or the results of things past presidents had done. He was a feel-good leader during feel-good times, and I contend he will be remembered as nothing more than a footnote about impeachemnt in US history textbooks.

We can argue this point continuously, actually we HAVE argued this point continuously.

Yes, yes, we know. The Clinton Economy was merely an after-effect of the wonderful Reagan Economy. All eight years can be attributed to the Republicans.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Do you mean politically?

If so, then you have a very strange view of things.

Presidents, and in general people, are not rememberd for things that happened to them, but how they responded to such situations. 9/11 was a horrible defining moment in US history, but Bush will be judged by his response to the event, not the event itself. Just as the Bush administration took a hit on Katrina in public opinion. Most people aren't blaming the Bush administration for Katrina, but how the administration responded to the event.

And how one responds to an event can be controlled. Clinton didn't have to lie under oath when asked about his sex life, Bush didn't have to overhaul FEMA, didn't have to attack Iraq etc...

But it's a very good idea to not talk of a 'legacy' until much later for the aforementioned reasons...

Excellent point. Many presidents have just ridden the 'wave' of circumstance. Some rode it to obscurity, others to historic 'greatness'.

The President can shape policy, but probably the most important facet of being the Prez is that he can shape public opinion of policy. His ability to do so is based on charisma, charm and the ability to effectively (if not efficiently) communicate.

There is no doubt that the President has an effect on virtually all facets of US operations. We could argue all day about how much effect has been affected by the President. In truth, it doesn't matter. The President is judged on the circumstance that happen while he is in office as well as how his office reacts to circumstance. Some win, some lose, many through no fault of their own.

The fact is Presidents ARE judged by their tenure, regardless of how much control they have or exercise.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Do you mean politically?

I would guess that he means the state of the nation during their presidencies.

[Inquartata]

There was no 'Clinton economy'. There was no 'Reagan economy'. There is only the economy, and it is much too immense and complex for one man or Administration to control or even to affect more than superficially...with the possible exception of the Fed Chairman. And when he DOES affect it, it's almost never as he intended, because of the various time lags inherent in measuring and evaluating economic circumstances, of forming, passing and implementing a palliative policy, and so forth.

Clinton did not orchestrate the boom of the 90's, nor did Reagan. Bush did not engineer the present economy, nor did Clinton. The economy is "engineered" by the sometimes competing and sometimes cooperating decisions and behaviors of millions of interests, both individual, family, small business and corporate, as well as foreign and government ones. Politicians like to claim credit for everything good that happens while they're in office, and we like to think that there's some leader steering the ships of our fortunes. But it's an Invisible Hand on that tiller, not one wearing a Yale class ring.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

it is well established that this happened despite his acts rather than because of them. Congress balanced the budget, not him. And the boom was a result of policies enacted by his predecessors, and of private industry developments; whereas his policies led to the recession that the Bush administration had to fix.)

So a republican congress balanced the budget despite a dem. President. Then why is it now that we have a republican pres and a republican congress, we have record national debt again?

[Inquartata]

Because the Republicans in charge aren't real conservatives, except on moral and religious issues.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

So a republican congress balanced the budget despite a dem. President. Then why is it now that we have a republican pres and a republican congress, we have record national debt again?

Because opposing political parties are the only thing the people of this country have still working on their side.

You're only fooling yourself if you believe a democrat president with a democrat controlled congress would be any different.