Posted on 12/19/2007 5:35:05 AM PST by shrinkermd
...the challenges facing the next president were almost identical to those he vowed to address in 1992. Why, after Clinton’s two terms in office, were we still thinking about tomorrow? In some areas, most notably health care, Clinton tried gamely to leave behind lasting change, and he failed. In many more areas, though, the progress that was made under Clinton — almost 23 million new jobs, reductions in poverty, lower crime and higher wages — had been reversed or wiped away entirely in a remarkably short time. Clinton’s presidency seems now to have been oddly ephemeral, his record etched in chalk and left out in the rain.
Supporters of the Clintons see an obvious reason for this, of course — that George W. Bush and his Republican Party have, for the past seven years, undertaken a ferocious and unbending assault on Clinton’s progressive legacy. As Clinton points out in his speeches, Bush and the Republicans abandoned balanced budgets to fight the war in Iraq, widened income inequality by cutting taxes on the wealthy and scaled back social programs. “We’ve had now seven years of a radical experiment in extremism in domestic policy,” Clinton said in New Hampshire.
Some Democrats, though, and especially those who are apt to call themselves “progressives,” offer a more complicated and less charitable explanation. In their view, Clinton failed to seize his moment and create a more enduring, more progressive legacy — not just because of the personal travails and Republican attacks that hobbled his presidency, but because his centrist, “third way” political strategy, his strategy of “triangulating” to find some middle point in every argument, sapped the party of its core principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The article is long and hard to excerpt. What is interesting is the sharp criticism directed at the Clintons by a liberal minded author.
I picked the paragraphs I liked. You might find others more interesting.
So the problem with Clinton was he wasn’t hard left enough.
People, if we don’t educate, and make people aware of what conservatism really stands for, we will lose every freedom we have.
Why bother reading? As is their standard practice, they make the mistake of using numbers right at the beginning of the article. No reason getting down to brass tacks here, because we are dealing with folks who honestly are incapable of reasoning beyond level one. Imagine, if you will, one of these clowns trying to design even the most simple of computer programs, or electronics. Then, think of them actually being given the power to control something as non-linear, chaotic, and unstable as a government controlled health system.
Hey, Clinton was for School UNIFORMS!!! Main Agenda Item: School Uniforms!! WOW!!
And let’s not forget another part of this hyuk-hyukin’ dope from Hope is that for eight years, he chose to look the other way when it came to the threat of Islamofascist terrorism, his cut n’ run policies in Somalia emboldened al Qaeda, his schoolboy approach to terrorism was to “call the cops” and treat it as a law enforcement issue, and he was too busy mugging for the cameras and playing grab-ass with the ladies to take seriously the responsibilities of his Office.
As has been widely reported, Emperor Billigula never ONCE during the two year tenure of former CIA Director James Woolsey, have a private meeting with the DCI. Clinton couldn’t be bothered.
As for the “most ethical administration in history”, the facts are that the Clinton/Gore years saw more investigations, indictments, scandals and resignations than any other presidency in American history, even over and above that of Nixon.
Bill and Hillary Clinton = America’s very own Ceausescus.
Another hit piece on the Clintons at a time they can least afford them. It just goes to show Hillary's perceived "inevitability" is a chimera.
What's laughable is the implication that "progressive" policies were a victim of the Clinton presidency. The National Health Care debacle insured that a progressive agenda was DOA. Especially after 1994, there was little chance a socialist agenda would be universally received.
People, if we don’t educate, and make people aware of what conservatism really stands for, we will lose every freedom we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I used to drive people away from me by trying to point out how quickly we were sliding into the cesspool of collectivism. Now I mostly just try to figure out how to survive on my own terms, I believe it is too late to educate all those who have grown up with no knowledge of how we got to this point. When high school graduates cannot name the correct century for the revolutionary war and have no idea what country we fought in the revolution what chance is there. We don’t need to even talk about the university graduates who can’t answer the same questions.
The media tries to give Clinton/Gore credit for the economic gains made under the new computing and internet age. This was a milestone in American business history, and had nothing to do with the White House. In fact, Clinton/Gore siphoned everything they could out of this economy and left President Bush with a severely declining economy.
The term is "progressive" - keep up the good fight since Hillary (if coronated) will "progress" the USA into collectivism/Marxism/communism.
I don’t give a history lesson. I usually try to point out how the more you get from government, the more control they have over your life. There is no way to avoid the trade-off.
I also try to make people understand what a tax really is; i.e., something that people lose everything they have and go to jail if they don’t pay. Now, is that senior center or flower garden worth that kind of slavery? What is?
These are good starting points. Most people have not been educated to think of benefits in this way. If I sense I’m on fertile ground, THEN I talk about the founders and what they meant to establish.
I also make a point out of saying if you “get something” from the government, it is not “free”. You pay for it somewhere else.
Snicker :-)
What is just going to 'kill' Bill is when his presidential 'legacy' is mentioned in the same breath as Jimmy Carter's.
BUSH's FAULT!!!
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.