Posted on 06/20/2006 3:39:35 PM PDT by neverdem
Why haven't Democratic elites embraced Clintonism, given the former president's success?
As the 2006 and 2008 elections loom ever nearer, Democrats are racking their brains for a political philosophy that can return the party to power. Everywhere, we hear the same lament: If only Democrats had a proven formula for winning elections and governing the country.
Fortunately, we do: It's called Clintonism.
By any logical standard, Democrats of every stripe ought to be embracing Clintonism and its central tenets -- providing people with more opportunity while demanding more responsibility, and being willing to try new methods to realize progressive ideals. As an instrument of progress, it's beyond compare. Just recall its achievements: record budget surpluses, rising incomes, more than 22 million new jobs, millions leaving welfare and poverty for work.
As a political formula, its record is just as impressive. Not only was Bill Clinton the first Democratic president in 60 years to be reelected, but consider this: In the three elections before 1992, Democrats averaged 58 electoral votes. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton averaged 375. He won a dozen red states twice.
So why haven't Democratic elites embraced Clintonism -- particularly after the ill-fated campaigns of 2000 and 2004, when party nominees who shied away from it didn't carry a single Southern state? Unfortunately, some in our party never accepted Clinton's willingness to challenge orthodoxy to achieve progressive ends on welfare reform, fiscal responsibility, crime and trade.
And perversely, many in the party have also held Clinton's enormous political success against him. Precisely because he was so popular -- leaving office with a 66 percent approval rating in the Gallup poll -- they assume he must have betrayed Democratic principles along the way.
Not so. Clinton won handily because he reconnected the Democratic Party to the principles that had...
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
ROFLMAO!
Go Dems!
The Clintons are a co-dependent millstone around the
neck of the Dimocrats and they are too blind to see it.
they haven't found a jacka** who could bs like the great bs'er himself.
In other words, an awesome amount of BS.
They left out the part about using your office for your own personal gratification.
The only reason Clinton was thought of as successful is because the press pretended he was! Being impeached and disbarred is success in the minds of the left these days. Being a rapist must be too!
Be serious. This is from the Red Star of the People's Republic of Minnesota.
I confess. I am laughing too. This is the funniest thing I have seen without it coming from The Onion.
Does this paper publish in an alternate universe?
Almost everything he promised to do he either reneged or failed at.
> Middle Class tax cut? Reneged (Rush discussed this in 1993 in "See, I Told You So")
>Hillary Care? Went nowhere. (Thankfully)
>Al Gore as 'Co-President' (Yes that was the promise in 1992) Forget about it.
>Gays in the military? Reneged. (Again thankfully)
"I will not coddle the dictators in Bejing." One of his biggest whoppers -- he allowed (some say sold) Red China the technology to build ICBMs AND the technology to arm them with MRVs.
His "successes" were the result of accepting the 1994 Republican Contract With America and claiming it was his idea!
That SOB unleashed fascism and had rural America on the verge of a civil war against the federal eco-marxist bureaucracy.
But the only problem is that nobody can do it like Bill.
Remember all the 1990's Dems that lost elections or switched parties to save their skin?
And now when Hillary triangulates, she gets booed by Democrats.
Don't forget that he was for welfare reform, after he was against it.
Clintonism: Govern by polls. Move just as far to the center as your polls tell you to. Avoid any hard or controversial decisions. Equivocate. Do what looks good, nothing else.
People forget the first two years of Clinton-- he came out of the box on a hard Left bent, until his numbers went way down and Congress went GOP. Following that, he triangulated and did everythign by the polls, and shied away from any controversial or difficult decisions that might have had a bad effect on his numbers.
Clintonism isn't leadership, it's being an empty suit.
Just as there was only one Hudinni... there is only one Bill Clinton
And that is precisely their problem -- they have no core belief, no philosophy, no moral values. They are slaves to power, willing to abandon whatever beliefs and principles they possess in order to grasp for elected office.
But everyone knows, a candidate who has no principles cannot be trusted with political office. He will not do what's right. He will not keep his promises. He has no position that he will not sell out.
To win, a candidate must above all convey firm convictions. This is where Democrats are hopeless.
taken with only democrats...or this is a bold face lie
Doogle
The party's over
The candles flicker and dim
You danced and dreamed through the night
It seemed to be right just being with him
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party's over
It's all over, my friend
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party's over
It's all over, my friend
It's all over, my friend
You forgot one. We don't who would have won the election if Perot had not entered. Clinton never had over 44% of the vote.
Clintonism? What's that? Oral sex in your office while working?
I believe the latter is an urban legend. IIRC, scientists from Hughes Electronics and the Loral Corp. corrected the malfunctions to launch those companies' satellites on Chicom missiles. IIRC, at least a few of their satellites went up in smoke with prior launch failures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.