Bring back the Cargo!
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 ...
Bring back the Cargo!
Because merely winning elections isn't the true measure of "success".
On Target!
Clintonism is (was) lie, lie some more, and have Mr. H. Ross siphon off republican votes. Use the office to get your knob polished. Then keep campaigning for 8 years.
Clinton's legacy was 1) a s1h!tty economy, 2) a war, 3) a carpetbagger wife/senator, and 4) a nation whose 8-10 year old kids wanted to know what oral sex was.
Really a good job, Willy!
We have some Democrat friends who are decent Americans, though misguided in our opinion, who will never forgive the Clintons for how they carried on while in the White House and never want to see that happen again. One even admitted that he does not understand how the Democratic Party sunk so low, but he admits that Hillary and Slick Willie had much to do with it.
Clinton, with his BS, managed to lose both the House and the Senate for the Democrats in 1996. That may be another historical landmark that the authors failed to recognize.
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.
This article appears to have left out one very important fact that is probably the single most important reason Democrats today don't embrace "Clintonism," whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
Despite all of the "success stories" listed in this article, the Democrat Party was a silly, dysfunctional farce by the end of Clinton's term in office. By the time Clinton left the White House in 2001, the Republican Party had won control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and legislative and executive offices at the state level all over the U.S.
By the time the 2000 elections rolled around, even many Democrats were privately asking themselves if "Clintonism" was nothing more than a venereal disease that affects people with serious personality disorders.
They lost both in 1994. Bob Dole stepped down as Majority Leader of the Senate to run against the bent one in 1996.
"Blowjobs for everyone and.........I'm riiicher than you are!"
FMCDH(BITS)
Oh, this is hysterically funny! What is this guy smoking? Clinton may have been willing to "challenge orthodoxy," but only in the area of whether it's appropriate to have adulterous sex in the Oval Office. Looney, just plain looney.
That could/should be the textbook definition.
You mean like destorying 70 years of Democrat Party domination of the US Goverment? That is the sort of Clinton success these butt clowns want to emulate?
Go for it boyos!
Dems haven't forgotten Rule # 1 of Clintonism: The only women to honor and obey are the gals at NARAL.
Iran was Jiffy Lube Carter's doing, NK and the Chicoms were Clinton's work.. you see myfriend we must never allow these people to take office of the presidency ever again.. we are paying for 8 yrs of Clintonian policies.. and the price might be too high yet..
I think that sums up the biggest danger in the upcoming '06 and '08 elections. Between the WOT and the negative, hate-filled press coverage since Clinton left office, people want to party again. They want to pretend terrorism doesn't exist; they want to pretend they are 6 years old again.
It's a simplistic theory, but I think it holds true. When people want to "play pretend," Democrats get elected.
I think what they are really looking for the "power to party."
Outstanding FReeper comments bump!
Clinton only survived because of the computer revolution and dot com explosion that happened on his watch. Although he did everything he could to take his unearned share, he couldn't stop the silicon juggernaught fueling the economy.
Every position he held, he reversed and then capitulated with the Republican offerings of the moment claiming all credit for ideas that simply required a signature. His mindless appointments were all embarrassments and he refined the politics of personal destruction into a multi-tiered "how to" program with the only goal being his ability to shrug responsibility while play acting his roll as a leader.
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.