In other words, keeping in mind the affairs of President Kennedy, the affairs and mixed children of Andrew Jackson, and the secret affairs of other presidents that we never heard about,. how would these moral police have rates Clinton?
(And let's not put all the blame on Clinton. Lewinsky was 24 years old when that happened. Grown. An adult. Very mature even as he kept that silly grin on her face all the time She admitted to Vanity Fair that she had had oral sex with at least 20 other men before Clinton. Nasty girl. Plus she didn't launder that dress for months. She hung it in her closet. What else was lurking in her house. Yech.
Now. WIth that litlte background that some of you may never have heard about, please answer the question.
2006-12-31 11:40:57 · 12 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes I meant Thomas Jefferson! Not Andrew Jackson.
2007-01-02 14:31:43 · update #1
I like Clinton. He's brilliant. He may have the keenest grasp of politics, business and social issues, and their interrelationship... not just domestically, but internationally, that I've ever seen in anyone... let alone a U.S. President.
Having said that, the whole Lewinski thing was absolute foolishness on his part. To have risked so much for so little... was beyond the pale.
He was a truly great President, but a truly lousy husband. I hope he's learned something about his personal priorities and values.
2006-12-31 11:49:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
C,leaning in the route of A. i might want to have cared a lot less about the Lewinsky scandal and the way it reflects upon bill Clinton morally talking. very nearly each guy able of wealth and/or has a tendency to cheat on their different halves in the suitable. yet I nevertheless see him as a lackluster president,considering he did not try this a lot even as in workplace,yet inspite of the indisputable fact that,did he extremely ought to do actual a lot because the commercial device change into possible sturdy on the time and we weren't scuffling with unnecessary wars for at perfect BS causes besides.
2016-12-01 09:19:25 · answer #2 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty good. Willie reformed welfare, pushed for Free Trade (that would only make an old conservative happy), invaded the Balkans, blew up a WMD factory in Sudan, tried to blow up Bin Laden with some cruise missles, stock market hit record highs, all in all Clinton did a lot of conservative things.
2006-12-31 11:46:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well considering Hillary Clinton was convinced of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, I would have to say the conservatives probably dissaproved of his poltics anyway. They could not attack him on on his morality because he did no other foul up's in that departments. But, they to this day claim he was not tough on terrorists and that 9/11 was planned right under his nose. I think the scandal actually deterred the GOP for jumping him on more pressing issues.
Clinton was a great president IMHO.
2006-12-31 11:44:40 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Clinton worried too much about his legacy rather than doing a good job and working for the US as a whole.
I think if it hadn't been for Monica, he might have been another lame president. He, like Gore, took credit for things that were not his doing.
Maybe he'd have done something great if he'd tried to make America better rather than trying to "level" the playing field for socialism to come in more.
2006-12-31 11:51:39 · answer #5 · answered by James B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
On one other note, you're thinking of Jefferson with the mixed race children/affairs.
I think you need to define "conservative". Classic economic conservatives will probably look back and approve - good economy, cut deficit, cut spending on welfare, only moderate regulation of business. They might not like the idea of health care reform, but it didnt' pass. (On the other hand, if we did have it, we might be in better shape now, to be honest. Health care spending is killing our businesses and public sector.) Social conservatives will probably continue to disapprove - pro-choice, gays in the military attempt.
I think once there is some good distance between then and current times, like twenty years, he'll look awesome, especially in regard to how his successor is turning out.
2006-12-31 11:56:32 · answer #6 · answered by mr_ljdavid 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton himself didn't do much
The legislative branch makes and passes the laws, which was controlled by the Republicans 6 out of the 8 years Clinton was in office
2006-12-31 11:43:19 · answer #7 · answered by John 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
CEOs of major companies get FIRED for having sex with a subordinate on company time and lying about it.
If there were not Monica there still would have been Paula, Gennifer, etc. and the lady who accused him of raping her. I still would have thought he was an immoral scumbag but Monica just became the icing on the cake for those like me who wanted him "caught" in the act and publicly admonished.
I do not condone Kennedy or any other cheater.
That's low.
2006-12-31 11:46:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Given that he did have a 65% rating when he left office, even after Monica, I would think if they were ever honest, they would have to say it would be in the 80's.
2006-12-31 11:49:52 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would rate him poorly, and I am not a conservative. Anyone who allows genocide to occur without stopping it, is very low in my book. Clinton knew what was going on in Rwanda, but he refused to send troops, and he pretty much banned the UN from sending troops as well.
I saw an interview with M. Albright, and she still feels guilty about acting in Clinton's behalf at the UN, and going against sending troops.
2006-12-31 11:43:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋