Why do Republicans think Americans dislike Bill Clinton?

Question

I know Republicans dislike him, just like Democrats dislike most Republican Presidents, but he was liked by a lot of people. Enough to elect him twice. I know he had his personal issues, but he still enjoys a 50+% approval rating. I think he's gonna help carry Hillary in the elections. He had a knack for connecting with people when campaigning. We shall see. Welcome back Bill.

C.B. That's not true. I looked up the results. he beat Dole by over a million votes in the popular vote.

Answer 1

I don't think that the Republicans who write on Y!A with regularity are indicative of all "Republican thought"; at least, I hope they aren't!!

For some reason, the people who write here seem to have a deep and abiding hate for ol' Bill, and they continuously express their moral outrage about his under the desk activities. (I have to laugh, because I keep thinking they must be hypocrites, or people who aren't gettin' any....)

I also get a kick out of the Hillary bashers who find fault with the fact that she didn't throw Bill out into the White House lawn. Show me a good ol' "family values" Republican woman who divorces her hubby at the first sign of an affair....

I think that reasonable people of both parties find something likable about Bill, whether they agree w/ his politics or not.

Answer 2

Most Americans never voted for Clinton... That is proof that most Americans didn't like him... twice.

Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote and that's a fact. More people voted against him than for him both times he ran.

Update-
It is 100% true. Look up what the percentages were. Clinton never carried more than 50% of the votes cast. Margin of victory is not the same thing as majority. Look up the definition of the word majority.

Answer 3

Speak for yourself only please. I can not stand the guy, did not vote for him at all. Bush was also elected twice and he is disliked by Demoncrats, so in answer to your question. Clinton's knack for connecting with people, is BS. He only like connecting with women, even if he had to force himself on them. Hillary ran the whitehouse once already, why should Bill feel any different about what his REAL position would be this next time, other than being a first husband, that is all he was before. As far as their being another Clinton's as President , that is very scary. I doubt that is going to happen, unless Americans have decided they want to be forced to be under rules like all other communist countries.

Answer 4

you ever hear of a double standard?
they've even created new uses for ordianry things to means insultingly. flip-flop, remember not too long ago it might of meant a pair of summer sandles? now..........
it's the same song but sung a bit off key with these.
i voted for
clinton too, it wasn't even the person involved that got his tail done it. his assistance's aid, on the way to the cleaner's.
at this point, because of all the deciet,deception and down right evil perversion of what was once a democratic government, even to the point of a war that the head of the u.n. delaired down right illeagal, it has only took a short time of dirty politics to bring the majority of the people to learn that even when we banded together to vote through a change, this man has become deaf and self willed.
PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON was brought down by a visable mark to wash off.
THIS GUY? left behind a legacy we can never be free of again,
these guys have masters in dirty politics, they don't care for the people anymore, they still haven't given up though. check see what the last gov. of ma. just pulled. leaving behind his trail we are wondering how to recover from now. and that dumb mulitie billion dollar tunnel, first it fell it, then it iced up with warning out about icycles, prior to that it leaked, the foundation needed repairs, and this is one visual example of rep. political deals, we have no funding , the bills he stakes claims for have never been signed...... he went on vacation for the last ten days of his term, didn't have to sign, just wasn;t there...poooof. now returns in arizona i think? to get a presidential run?
see. President Clinton's only down fall was in not underestamating how rotten politics were about to come. people are people, that's all.
it was turned into a visual stain that will forever brand this man's acceptance to lead our country.
now the oppositon is being caught up with stains of self will, not readily seen but much longer lasting than those that can be washed away.
when in doubt redirect, if you can keep your voter's eyes on what they can see, they won't see the results of what is really being done.
they have to blame some one for this mess, why not President Clinton, look who he's backing now.
GGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HHHHHIIIIIIIILLLLLLLAAAAARRRRRRRRYYYYYYY

Answer 5

I don't think that's true....THEY do. To say he had "personal issues" is definitely an understatement. I'm a Democrat and I think he did do a lot of good things for the country but his personal integrity.....well, left a little to be desired?

Where I draw the line though is where they clain every single thing Bush has failed at (namely everything!) is CLINTON'S fault. That is ridiculous.

Answer 6

I did not care for how he handled his personal life, but as a world leader, he is a giant compaired to baby bush. Too bad the Republicans tripped him up every chance they could. We would not be in th mess we are in if they had just worked with him.

Answer 7

It is a staple political tactic to act as if what you want to be true is. If you are consistent and convincing, some people will start to beleive it's so.

It is also possible that they actually beleive it, never underestimate the power of human self-delusion.

Answer 8

I liked Clinton, and one thing is for sure, he didn't 25,000 killed or wounded in a war based on pure lies! In fact, Clinton left the country in far better shape than Bush will, though his last term was with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, than when he found it!

Clinton was a good speaker and he was liked world-wide by countries and their presidents! The Economy was strong in his administration and he almost balanced the budget.

Most of America does not dislike Clinton, and I would hate to put to a poll as who was the better president, Bush or Clinton! Clinton would win overwhelmingly. In fact, if he could have run for a third term he would have made minced-meat out of the Worst president in this nations history!

Bush had no mandate, and in fact, lost the popular vote in 2000!

They have no issue to go after, so they choose his personal issues, when they know damned well George cheated on his wife, as has many, if not most, presidents. Ironically, the adultery rate in this country is in the 40% bracket, and I know it isn't just Dems!

And they can never say Clinton was a bigger liar than Bush! Bush told more lies in his 2003 SOU than Clinton did in 8 years. Bush has trampled the Constitution!

And Clinton was not soft during his admin as Repubs would have you believe! In fact, it has always been the Repubs who were weak until the trades! And what does Bush do? He goes after a country with no terrorist's that was not linked in any way to 9/11, and 4 years later (longer than WW II) we are still there losing troops daily.

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.


Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Answer 9

For someone so disliked he certainly can draw huge cheering crowds and raise millions in campaign money. We should all be hated like that.

Answer 10

he lied to our faces... then pardoned a lot of scumbags right before he left office because he owed them favors