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

or just outright calling him a closet Republican. That seems to be the tactic Republicans are using this day trying to justify Bush's failures.

2007-07-06 15:47:32 · 6 answers · asked by Gemini 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Republicans are now calling any failure in their party a RINO (Republican in Name Only). How convenient.

2007-07-06 16:00:14 · update #1

6 answers

clinton - the days when things worked and our country was not sold to people poisoning us now - those days?

2007-07-06 15:51:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

You may be just being sarcastic but there is a bit of truth in what you are saying. Bill Clinton did several things that were successful but directly against the liberal democratic position. I cite things like signing the Welfare Reform Act which was vehemently opposed by liberal Democrats. He signed NAFTA into law that was opposed by the liberals and trade unions of the Democratic party.

There were several such actions he took that, at the time were the correct course of action (as far as I am concerned) but which made the liberal Democrats nuts. On welfare reform and NAFTA he was on the same side as Rush Limbaugh.

In these respects he was a "DINO". But it was part of Bill Clinton's SOP. He never really led on any issue but would go to the polls run a focus group or two and when he determined what was the popular way to go, he would get in front of the parade. Heck, his own people such as James Carville are on record as saying that Bill Clinton was amazingly without any core beliefs that anyone could determine. Everything was negotiable. As long as it kept up his popularity numbers.

This is why he never received more than 46% of the vote and only got elected because of a spoiler third party candidate. This is why everyone has such a hard time listing any major accomplishements or even a legacy for him.

He did not want to be president because of some buring desire to make serious changes or to right some great wrongs. He was more of a rock star than a president. He was not dangerous in that he might start a war over some deeply held principle but he was dangerous in his ability to neglect important issues and lack of desire to take any aciton that might hurt his popularity.

.

.

2007-07-06 23:08:11 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0 0

It is unbelievable that Bill and Hillary have the nerve to be critical of anyone. They have been a party to just about every low life situation possible during their 8 year tenure in the White House. Need I say more?

2007-07-06 22:52:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Clinton, you mean the president that gave nuclear secrets to Korea because they promised not to use them to make weapons, is that the genious your talking about, or; had Osama bin laden offered to him to prosecute and said no thanks. yeah that guy was an awesome president, largest tax increase in the history of the U.S. yeah the good ol days.

2007-07-06 22:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by rome 5 · 1 1

Geez if we are going to call Clinton names.. I hate to imagine what we will call Bush. He is a hundred times worse a president.

2007-07-06 22:52:56 · answer #5 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1 2

That would be a start.

2007-07-06 22:51:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers