I mean, CLinton doesn't have anything to do with the question, and yet he is still mentioned. And yet strangely, the question is never answered. Why is that? Why can't we talk about today? How is Clinton's presidency relevant to any of the decisions the Bush administration has made? Now, let's watch all on the right talk about Clinton, and all on the left talk about Bush. Ready...GO!
2006-10-09 09:13:14 · 28 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
jesi, my question is the string of words ending in a question mark. I didn't think I would have to explain that to you.
2006-10-09 09:17:43 · update #1
Well he's so easy and I cant resist but I will,Franklin Delano Roosevelt(a distant great great uncle of mine by the way)Created welfare to get us out of the depression era(good)didnt stop it after the country landed on its feet in WWII(bad)Created new taxes(Federal) to cover the war effort(good)didnt end them when the war was over and business was still prosperous (bad)though his predacessor Truman(whom I like)took over after his death...now that I didnt say anything I feel better...hope you do too.
2006-10-09 09:27:34 · answer #1 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I guess that a lot of people always compare Bush and Clinton. It is very normal. Some people just mention Clinton in how he can be related to the topic, but it doesn't really mean that they want to include him in the whole thing. He is just the example. Yeah and I know what you mean by everyone always talking about either Bush or Clinton or both! It's just ridiculous. It's like since it's over leave it alone. Don't dwell in the past.
2006-10-09 09:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. The latest "spin" from the Republicans is to attempt to find something equal or worse to blame Democrats whenever a Republican is caught doing something wrong.
President Clinton made quite a few political enemies during his term of office, and had an agenda that did not sit well with the "Religious Right". Unfortunately, every time a Republican now is found to also be doing things the Religious Right find reprehensible, the Republican Spin Doctors drag out the "Well, Clinton got a BJ" or "Clinton was soft on Bin Laden" rhetoric to deflect blame away from their cronies. This Mark Foley incident is rife with such comments.
2006-10-09 09:19:48 · answer #3 · answered by sewmouse 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because republicans blame "libs" and Clinton for everything while democrats blame Bush for everything. Neither can answer the question because they usually forget it by the time they get to the end of their Bush/"lib"/Clinton bashing. Clinton is just as big of a jack@$$ as Bush so I really don't see what the argument is.
2006-10-09 09:18:31 · answer #4 · answered by Autogestion 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hey you have about 9 senences that look OK but make No sense. So lets see:
Dang ! You did it! 10 words, you put here and your the first to get both in, that realy not fair, no points for any of us.
Yes.
OK!
Well how did we miss the question? Did you have one?
"Why is what?" Yes !! is that a second base question or who's at third ?
Sure! Let's see Northern California, beautiful day, bright sun, 56F, mild, gentel breeze, clear blue sky, perfect! :)
Clinton and Bush are simply taking care of business, "one day at a time", just like you and I. except I have a beer! Ha Ha Ha
OH dang! Your a silly fool and a Bush basher. :)
No Republican, has to bother with such nonsense.
Clinton's zipper action has been worn out.
People like you now, keep us laughing. :)
2006-10-09 09:45:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely until *after* November at least! The Republicans, having lost the ability to bring out even their 'base' voters now that it is clear they have lied to protect oversexed page-molestors, now that it is clear that they have never had a decent plan for Iraq and don't care what people think about the war they're sending their sons and daughters to fight, now that it is clear that the economy as it stands is benefitting a select few while all the rest struggle to keep the quality of life they had 10 years ago without falling further into debt....
and losing even on the *fear* issue, because potential voters are beginning to understand that despite the rhetoric trying to make Dems look like wussywimps wishing to throw spitballs at terrorists instead of bombs, the GOP has *not* made Americans safer but indeed even less safe with their policies...
They have to bring out one last issue that has worked in the past--the vehement dislike some have for Bill Clinton!
Somehow, hatred for that man is very powerful fuel for GOP 'base'.
2006-10-09 09:25:43 · answer #6 · answered by Michelle H 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because Clinton remains more influential in politics and world affairs despite benig removed from presidency for two terms than Bush will ever manage to be. In the hearts and minds of most Conservatives an implication that Bush is failing is a comparison that Bush isn't living up to the successes of the Clinton Administration.
2006-10-09 09:17:56 · answer #7 · answered by W0LF 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clinton. Clinton ClintonClinton. Clinton ClintonClinton. Clinton ClintonClinton. Clinton ClintonClinton. Clinton ClintonClinton. Clinton Clinton
2006-10-09 09:15:21 · answer #8 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, probably not all that possible. Because Clinton did a much better job in his presidency (leave aside the Monica Lewinsky publicity) than Bush EVER will.
Bush is an IDIOT and started a war for no reason. He has blatantly allowed oil prices to skyrocket, causing us gas prices well over $3.00 a gallon.
When Clinton was president, the oil companies tried to do this same thing, just raise the prices for the hell of it out of greed, and Clinton threatened to release some oil from our oil reserves in order to keep gas prices down to $1.15/gallon where they were.
Which president would you rather choose? There are many other issues, not leaving out the fact that Bush is and always will be an IDIOT. I rest my case.
2006-10-09 09:17:26 · answer #9 · answered by jennnnn 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
No...
The Clinton administration is like a sexually transmitted disease...
Even though the clown that brought the condition is no longer here, the disease of that administration just keeps on giving...
Just consider the help the Clinton administration gave the North Koreans and now look at our situation...
Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
2006-10-09 09:22:31 · answer #10 · answered by juandos 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋