Posted on 03/28/2002 9:35:18 AM PST by libber-tarian
I recently wrote an article in which I referred to Bill Clinton as a shallow man, and was asked to explain myself by a reader who went on to claim that Bill Clinton "righted the wrongs of active exclusion, willful ignorance, and offensive pity" and "[led] the nation through its longest period of peacetime expansion of economic, social, and individual opportunity."
What I've never understood about the Clinton apologists is that they apparently value talk over action. Other than make speeches filled with feel-good rhetoric, what did Bill Clinton actually do? People may have felt comforted by his words, believed that he cared about them and felt their pain, but in the end, all of Clinton's talk amounted to nothing.
Whenever I talk to supporters of Bill Clinton, I ask them to list the things he did. Most people can't name a single thing, and instead credit him with presiding over an expanding economy, as though coincidence--the dumb luck of having his presidency aligned with the business cycle--somehow proves that he caused it to happen. But what did he do that was so beneficial to the economy? For that matter, what actions did he take to "right the wrongs of active exclusion"? Don't ask, don't tell? Hardly the epitome of inclusiveness.
My memory may be failing me, but when I try to recall the achievements of the Clinton presidency, I can name only two of any significance: Welfare Reform and NAFTA. Despite the fact that neither of these bills originated from the Clinton Administration, I do give him credit for signing them; most Democrats would not have signed either bill. On the other hand, neither of these bills could pass Congress until the Republicans took over in 1994. So I guess the real achievement of the Clinton presidency was scaring enough people during his first two years in office that he put the Senate and the House of Representatives in the hands of the Republicans for the first time since 1954. But I doubt the fans of Clinton would celebrate that monumental achievement.
As far as the economy goes, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton presided over a favorable economy and a remarkable expansion in the stock market. But remember that most of this expansion was due to the rise of the Internet and the resulting speculation on Internet stocks. Remember when the economy started to go south? That's right, just when the Internet bubble burst. Al Gore's attempt to take credit for inventing the Internet notwithstanding, nobody in their right mind would claim that the Clinton Administration was somehow responsible for the Internet boom.
But if you insist on crediting Bill Clinton with the rise of the stock market, then you must also blame him for the "irrational exuberance" that led to its collapse. You must therefore also blame him for the recession. Otherwise, you're crediting him for handing out the drinks at the party and blaming his successor--the guy who has to clean up the mess--for everyone's hangover the next day.
Getting back to my claim that Bill Clinton is a shallow man, it seems to me that someone who squanders an opportunity to achieve greatness and instead uses his power for nothing more than the satisfaction of his own wants and needs is shallow. Bill Clinton is pathologically self-absorbed, which is why he constantly found himself bungling into scandal after scandal.
Now, one may scream that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Bill Clinton; even if you believe that nonsense, you have to wonder why Bill Clinton went out of his way to hand his enemies so much ammunition on such a regular basis. And when I say scandal, I'm not even thinking about the "lying under oath" thing, which Clinton supporters dismiss as inconsequential. I'm talking about other serious stuff, all of which is well-known to people who were paying attention, but most of which was underreported due to the media's focus on the more salacious--and therefore media-friendly--Clinton scandals.
If you'll recall: Under Bill Clinton, the White House became a glorified motel, where the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out to contributors who coughed up enough dough. Military secrets ended up in the hands of the Chinese, who laundered money that ended up in the hands of the Democratic National Committee just in time for Clinton's re-election campaign. Al Gore was dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. When Enron's Ken Lay was staying in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton Administration, Enron came to ask the federal government to underwrite foreign loans on 20 different occasions; on 19 of those 20 occasions, the Clinton Administration said yes, to the tune of $2 billion dollars. And let us not forget about selling presidential pardons to drug-runners and fat-cat tax-cheat felons on the lam in Europe. Or the looting of White House furniture for their new home, which is unfortunately located in my home state. And all that's without even getting into Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, or the perjury scandal.
Bill Clinton is a low-life thief, a petty swindler, and a smooth-talking scam artist more suited for Tammany Hall than the White House. But I will admit that Bill Clinton was a man of action, as long as that action involved greasing his palms (or anything other body part for that matter) or furnishing his house. Somehow, Bill Clinton found the time to conduct all of that "business", but he was too busy to take Osama bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over to us in 1996. Think about it: we wouldn't be chasing bin Laden around the globe right now if Clinton had focused a little more on taking care of the threats against us and a little less on figuring out every conceivable way that he could cash in on his power or use it to get women.
Which reminds me...as far as giving Clinton credit for presiding over a time of peace, what kind of peace was it? During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured. It seems to me that it's very easy to maintain the illusion of peace by ignoring the dangers that surround us. You may look back fondly at the 1990s as a time of peace, but it was a peace during which we relaxed while our enemies were getting stronger and preparing to annihilate us. That's a pretty shallow peace if you ask me.
Bill Clinton is shallow because he spoke often of his convictions but did nothing to realize them. He's shallow because he was given remarkable gifts and the opportunity to do great things with them, yet he achieved nothing substantial. In the end, his presidency amounted to little more than talk and corruption. He rarely took any action unless it somehow benefitted him. But whenever action mattered for the good of the nation, Bill Clinton was nowhere to be found. And that is why the man who spent the final days of his presidency fretting about his legacy will find it to be recorded quite accurately by history: Bill Clinton is a shallow, failed man.
He lowered the amount social security recipients could earn before they had to pay taxes on their meager social security checks. I couldn't believe that the stupid Republicans never made an issue out of this.
You conveniently forget the economic picture of the Sinkmeister's first year. Shouldn't be too difficult to live up to these dismal results:
A business cycle upswing was already well underway when the Clinton policy changes were under consideration. The continuation of an already existing expansion only indicates that any policy changes implemented were not damaging enough to end the business cycle, it cannot prove that policy changes had any positive effect on a previously existing expansion. Moreover, the pace of GDP growth slowed from the 3.7 percent annual growth rate set in 1992 (measured 4th quarter to 4th quarter) to 2.2 percent in 1993, 3.5 percent in 1994, and 1.3 percent in 1995. The rate of economic growth did not accelerate relative to its 1992 pace under the 1993 budget policies...
Moreover, there was actually very little partisan disagreement about the direction of the economic effects of the Clinton budget plan in 1993. In 1993 both Democrats and Republicans publicly expressed concerns about the drag the Clinton budget plan would impose on the economy. For example, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee, including Senators Kennedy, Sarbanes, Dorgan, and Congressmen Obey, Stark, Mfume and Wyden, voiced their concerns in the 1993 JEC Annual Report. According to the Democrat views, the Clinton budget plan "will continue to exert downward pressure on economic activity through the next five years."
Of the $126 billion decline in the deficit between 1992 and 1995, $71 billion is accounted for by a continuation of the business cycle, $21 billion by swings in deposit insurance outlays related to the S&L problem, and $8 billion by spectrum auctions. These three factors account for $100 billion of the $126 billion decline in the deficit. When the effects of these three technical and economic factors are filtered out, the decline in the deficit is a much less impressive $26 billion. This decline in what we will call the adjusted deficit is accounted for by policy changes in one specific category of federal spending.
A review of the 1992-95 budget data shows a dramatic change in the levels of one spending category affected by policy changes -- discretionary defense spending. If this defense spending had remained at its $303 billion level of 1992, the deficit adjusted for major economic and accounting factors would have been virtually unchanged since 1992. Total increases in other federal spending categories would have just about equaled the amount of higher tax revenues between 1992 and 1995. However, discretionary defense spending had been cut $29 billion during this period. This cut in defense spending accounts for 115 percent of the $26 billion reduction in the adjusted deficit.
Outside of the defense category discussed, there has been virtually no net deficit reduction due to policy. The 1993 tax increase merely funded an increase in other federal spending. Moreover, deficits would be higher if President Clinton's proposed "stimulus," or "investment," spending increases had not been stopped by the Republican minority in Congress. To the extent nondefense deficit reduction has been realized, it is due to stopping, not implementing, President Clinton's policies.
...soon after enactment of the Clinton program in August of 1993, the Administration revised its economic growth assumptions downward for 1993 and 1994, and shortly thereafter long term interest rates began rising, not falling. By July of 1994, the yield on a 30 year Treasury bond had risen to 7.6 percent, above the level in the first full month of the Clinton Administration.
Jab? That was supposed to be a right hook.
I believe that when businesses donate to the dems it is to buy protection from them. Afterall, the power to tax is the power to destroy, so these businesses are trying to survive. That's why the current tax code must go. If the Congress does not have that power to virtually demand payoff protection money (like the mob) then we don't have to worry about 'corrupting' these poor weak souls and help save them from themselves before they take another bribe.
You missed the real Klintler legacy...
Legacies come in many forms. Take Lou Gehrig for instance; Gehrig was one of the all-time great baseball players, and is yet chiefly remembered for having a heretofore unrecognized disease named after him. The same may ultimately hold true of Slick.
There are several inherent problems with trying to set the numeric records ala Don Giovanni and make it with literally hundreds of different women over a course of a few years. One is that the first thing which goes straight out the window is any notion of quality; you'll see these guys come home with Marilyn Monroe one night, and then Aunt Jemima (or something like Monica Lewinski which looks like the centerfold of some livestock journal) the next, with the same stupid shit-eating grin on their faces, since it's all really just the same to them.
Another problem in the case of politicians is that they make prime targets for blackmail and manipulation of themselves by conducting themselves like that. Slick couldn't get the simplest kind of security clearance which you'd need to be a janitor or a guard at the gate at any military base in America, and he's supposed to be commander in chief of our armed forces. That's insane. Another problem in the case of liberals particularly, is that it appears to be a vanishingly small step from believing oneself above man's laws to believing oneself above things like the laws of physics and the law of averages. For instance, thinking "I'm a Kennedy; there's no reason on Earth why I shouldn't be able to ski downhill, operate a camcorder, and play football all at the same time, the trees will get out of the way!" Or, in the case of Slick, thinking he could put the make on 50 different women in one day and that all 50 would be happy about it.
Something like that could lead to a psychic problem with taking "no" for an answer and, if we're to believe even a small fraction of what we read, it has. The claim which you read around the net is that the Paula Jones testimony includes something like a dozen different allegations of sexual assault and rape, that Slick has been out of control for a long time, and that a professional organization has been in place to keep a lid on this by means of bribery, intimidation, and whatever else gets the job done, and that this has invariably worked because, in each individual case, you had some poor woman on her own without any real resources up against an organization with the resources of one of the fifty states.
And then there's the problem of VD. Matt Drudge reported (11/2/98) that:
"White House intern Monica Lewinsky told Linda Tripp that President Clinton would cancel dates with her when he was flared with blisters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned from multiple sources in and out of government..."
Ouch!!! But, bad as herpes or whatever that is might be, TCD syndrome is a lot worse (e.g. http://www.nypost.com/102798/news/5800.htm):
"...The documents also include Jones' description of Clinton's distinguishing characteristic.
'His penis_ was ... crooked and gross. You know. That was the word she used, Jones' sister Lydia Cathey said in a deposition...
My own judgement is that that sort of thing does not come from microorganisms or viruses, but rather from close encounters with doors (in this case, probably a limo door and some chick who, like Paula, didn't want to hear about it), i.e.
Kiss it?? #### YOU, you STINKING PERVERT!!!!
SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMM!!!!!!!!
and hence the designation TCD (Tallywhacker Caught in Door) syndrome. As a child I had a cat with feline TCD (Tail Caught in Door) syndrome, and hence recognize the symptom.
And thus we come to the question of Slick's legacy, aside from being the only elected president ever to be impeached in the 200+ year history of the republic. As in the case of Gehrig, I suspect that Clinton's chief legacy will be having a new disease named after him, and that TCD syndrome will come to be known as "Slick Clinton's Disease".
There you go with the demospeak. I'm not asking you to predict the future. I'm asking you to argue with me openly that Clintaxula did not author the recession.
Once again, you attemt to spin-free. It ain't happening.
And while we are at it-If Clinton were not trying so hard to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Arafat would have been less of an obstruction to peace.
What a legacy! /sarcasm
When he got up to give his acceptance speech, I remember feeling an overwhelming sense of revulsion, and for no apparant reason. Something in his spirit was "oozing lies." Wish I'd been mistaken.
What's my point? Perhaps what you think is so un-Christianlike within your self, is in reality a "discernment of spirits," meant to be a spiritual warning siren ("...get-away-fast!"), as described by St. Paul in 1Cor. 12. God never meant us to embrace pure evil.
Eerily strange that I had almost the exact reaction! I remember vividly the long-winded, empty speech that basically said nothing, and the Dukakis supporters trying to shut him up so that their man could speak in prime time--it was as if Clinton had purposely sabotaged the convention. I cannot explain why I reviled this man so much even before he became the most failed president in the history of the Republic. At first I attributed it to the fact that he was the pure definition of a poltroon (base coward) and a feeling that the valedictorian of my high school (killed as a Marine 2nd Lt. in 1970) had taken his place on the memorial wall. But it goes even beyond that. Clinton, according to some of the people who heard him at the White House during the Somalia debacle, couldn't understand why "some our stupid f*king troops died trying to get those dead soldiers back...we could have paid to have the bodies returned," he said. I hope some how to eventually come to grips with my pure hatred of this man, the only individual in my entire life I have felt this way for so long, because I'm destined for hell if I don't.
I still think you're being way too hard on yourself. Number one, you ARE NOT destined for hell if you've trusted Christ for your salvation. He suffered and died for all our sins, not just the "mild" ones. Actually, if we had the ability to control them all by our own willpower, Chirst's death may not have been necessary.
Second, In my case, the fact that (back in '92) I felt such a sickening aversion to this man without any prior knowlege of who he even was at the time, and that my reaction turned out to be dead on target, tells me that there may have been an oppressive spiritual darkness present in his soul. The fact that we sensed this immediately is a good thing. It means you have a tender consciense and are sensitive to spiritual things. Then, the fact that he occupied the white house cast a spiritual darkness on the entire culture.
Many Christians are taught to "hate the sin, but love the sinner," and for the most part that works out well. There are a few people though, that as a result of their own life choices, become so yielded to, and intertwined with evil, that it's impossible for us in our limited human capacity to separate the sin from the sinner. At that point it's God's job, and ideally we leave that to Him and get on with our lives. Tough to do though, if he's the leader of the free world, and the news of the day keeps reminding you that we're all under the authority of a scumbag. I couldn't imagine the frustration of being in the military, and having that as your supreme Commander In Chief.
Also, around the time of the impeachment circus, I realized that it wasn't so much what Clinton did that made me nuts, as much as that he got away with it. He continued to get away with it, and he gets away with it to this day. We're all supposed to reap what we sow. There are always consequences to wrongdoing, but apparantly not for this guy. God expects us to loathe injustice, and that's not hatred by any stretch.
Getting carried away with the armchair theologan stuff, sorry. Two verses to ponder:
"To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech." - Proverbs 8:13
"...Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." - Romans 12:9
According to God's Word, you may be doing just fine.
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.