English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or else we wouldn't have a direct comparison between a good and bad president. Right?

2006-10-10 07:00:21 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Is that lemming lundstrom... living in the same planet as the rest of us or is his head so far in the sand that he has become disorientated? I give up with these apologists for mediocrity.

2006-10-10 08:34:09 · update #1

25 answers

LOL... Love that question. I'll bet people have very differing ideas about whether Clinton was the good one and Bush is the bad one or whether Bush is the good one and Clinton is the bad one.

They could not be more different, however.

2006-10-10 07:10:42 · answer #1 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 2 1

President Clinton was one of our most maligned Presidents in history. Facing slander from the radical right and sniping from the Left, Clinton tried to successfully navigate down Washington's treacherous pathways. Making the unlikely journey from Hope, Arkansas to the White House (showing us all that the American Dream was well and alive) A liberal at heart, Clinton mixed compassion and pragmatism in an effort to heal America and move her forward to the 21st century. During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

"There is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed with what is right in America.
I refuse to be part of a generation that celebrates the death of communism abroad with the loss of the American dream at home. Americans deserve better, and in this city today there are people who want to do better, and so I say to all of you here, let us resolve to reform our politics, so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage, so that we can feel the pain and see the promise of America. Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation, a government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays. Let us give this Capitol back to the people to whom it belongs.
The light may be fading on the 20th century, but the sun is still rising on America.”
----Bill Clinton

2006-10-10 15:52:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I guess you mean he is the example of the bad President? I mean besides Jimmy Carter he was the worst of the 20th Century. He will probably go down as being in the worst 10 of all time.

There was a poll of Presidential historians a few years back and he was below Harding and Hoover..

As for the intelligent remarks about the economy, the unemployment is lower now than it was in the 90's and the Dow is the highest ever (not like the Nasdaq, it is based on real companies that produce real products). There is also no Dot.com bubble making the economy look good when it is really hollow...

2006-10-10 14:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by Biggen 2 · 1 3

Well Bill Clinton WASN'T perfect, but he got elected HONESTLY twice, went to work a LOT more than he vacationed, was HONEST in the realm of PUBLIC POLICY, unfortunately not in private life, and did a GOOD job in general. If your other reference is to Dictator Dumbya, he does NOT qualify as a president and is unworthy of comparison to ANY US president, even the worst, who was Tricky Dick. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

2006-10-10 15:46:27 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1 0

You're right here are all the good things Clinton did (from a liberals viewpoint): was impeached, sexually assaulted, harassed several women, raped one, committed perjury, lost his law license, reduced the size and morale of the military and intelligence services, refused to deal with terrorism, which only encouraged increased terrorism leading to 9-11. aided North Korea's nuclear weapons program, sold missile technology to the Chinese, cited for contempt by a federal judge, lied to the American people (not only lied but lectured the American people on national television), did nothing to promote energy independence, fix social security, or reduce crime (passed worthless feel good anti gun laws that did nothing to reduce crime-his answer midnight basketball). Finally he enriched himself and surrounded himself with crooks like Mike Espey, Henry Cisneros, Ron Brown, and lesbos like Janet Reno who was responsible for the massacre of over 60 innocent people at Waco. His greatest legacy is the damage and ridicule he brought to the office of president-he made it a sick joke.

Wolf you're wrong, Clinton was impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate. Andrew Johnson was also impeached but not removed, and Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment. Clinton didn't even have the honor or courage to do that. He cared more about his "legacy" than what was best for the country.

2006-10-10 14:18:20 · answer #5 · answered by mk_matson 4 · 1 2

That's not really fair to Clinton. While he is doing more to benifit America than George W Bush she's not acutally the president. I know how confusing that can be given how much the mentally insane tend to attack his presidency.

And speaking of distorting the facts. John b are you mentally deficient and unaware that Bill Clinton was never Impeached? or do you think you're from the future talking about President Hillary Clinton's Impeachement?

2006-10-10 14:14:20 · answer #6 · answered by W0LF 5 · 1 3

You're right -- Clinton made a mockery of the office of Chief Executive, and Bush has restored respect to the Presidency. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're fighting a losing battle. The American public sees only too clearly through the lies and fact-editorializing coming out of the liberal left, especially the fact that so many of the liberals who are running for re-election are bashing Bush but VOTED IN FAVOR OF INVADING IRAQ!!! Finally, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public are beginning to see what I have known for over a decade -- liberal = hypocrite.

2006-10-10 14:07:09 · answer #7 · answered by sarge927 7 · 1 4

I thought this was a joke until I saw humanist post the question.

Clinton was the second president impeached. Both presidents impeached were democrats, and were impeached for breaking the law. John in the post above me is wrong on that point.

It was the economy of Clinton that was Worldcom and Enron...and it was Bush and his administration that busted them. Clinton went after cigarettes and Windows. Economically speaking, under Bush prodcution is higher than under Clinton, people take home more money in their pay checks, more people own homes than ever in american history, less banqrupsies are filed, the stock market hit an all time high (twice), unemployement is lower than anytime we have ever catalogued unemployement statistics, violent crime is down, teen pregneancy is down, new AIDS cases are down, more Blacks are in the middle class, in the executive branch, own their own homes, own their own businesses, and NATO has expanded its power-base.

So, economically, Bush wins. In terms of global support, Clinton wins, but so what. French people do not vote in our elections, nor do they pay taxes. C'es la vie.

La Guerre......in war, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have more freedom and more money in their pockets now than they did. They must fight for their freedom, true, but freedom requires blood. Haiti is worse now than before Clinton, as is the disaster he left in Somallia. Let us not forget his betrayal of Israel either. Bosnia was a good thing, but Clinton only cared about them because they were white. He did nothing to stop Rwanda, and went out of his way to call in genocide. Bush has done no better on Rwanda than Clinton either.

Both presidents ahve their good and their bad. If you want to talk civil rights violatons, remember filegate and echelon......both Clinton.....so they both have their bumps and good stuff.

In regaqrds to the stupid liberal above....Clinton was impeached but not conviceted in the Senate. The last thing I need is a lecture from a dumb liberal who cannot even read the Constitution and understand the fundamentals of civics.

2006-10-10 14:20:57 · answer #8 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2 4

LoL. No we just would have had boring monologues from Letterman and Leno. And look at the catch phrases Clinton gave us:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
I did not inhale.
The whole cigar thing, but need I go on, really?
And the whole Hillary thing about not being no Tammy Wynette standing by her man.
Oh, Clinton, good times there, my friend, good times.

2006-10-10 14:01:46 · answer #9 · answered by BlueSea 7 · 3 3

Clinton was a mediocre president, at best. He was, however, a skillful politician. Good politicians win elections, but doesn't guarentee they will be good Presidents.

2006-10-10 14:07:03 · answer #10 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers