I'd say he was a very good Republican.
2007-07-31 00:55:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sleepy, it's time to wake up and actually address the question.
2007-07-31 00:59:15 · update #1
..forced into welfare reform....oh yes I'm sure. It was his administration who decided to cut that spending and implemented it,
look how you try to take credit where credit is not due, even though he gave countless speeches about giving a hand up, not a hand out, like neo liberal Tony Blair echoed,
you people have no clue.
And YES, it was also his idea to employ tens of thousands more cops,
If you want to take credit for welfare and the police state, why not also take credit for Waco while you're at it?
2007-07-31 01:13:56 · update #2
He did wonders for the Cigar Industry and McDonald's.
2007-07-31 01:02:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, it's funny, Clinton was more of a moderate Republican than Bush will ever be, yet he is hated by them. I actually thought welfare reform was long overdue, but NAFTA should never have been signed into law. It paved the way for the North American Union, which will lead to the fall of the United States.
2007-07-31 08:01:33 · answer #2 · answered by wisdomforfools 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget it was George H Bush that was pushing for NAFTA. Clinton also did and excellent job in welfare reform (I had three elderly relatives on it and would have died without it), and yes he did allocate a lot of money to increase police on the street. What's your point?
2007-07-31 08:11:54 · answer #3 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Left and right is a paradigm. They are both controlled. They have the same end in mind by different means. Might wanna look that up.
BTW, the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did quite a good job of beefing up the police state as well.
2007-07-31 08:10:00 · answer #4 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, Clinton deserves no credit for welfare reform. He signed the bill into law after vetoing it twice and after Newt Gingrich figuratively "beat him over the head."
The US is not a police state, so you cannot give Mr. Clinton for something he did not do.
NAFTA was not a good move, I agree. But it is not something a Republican president would have done. You have no evidence to support such a claim.
In eight years, Mr. Clinton raised taxes and got a BJ. Again not something a Republican would have done.
2007-07-31 08:06:15 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'd have to agree. Except that there was Peace and General Prosperity--and you know how Republicans hate that.
So, petty lovechildren that they are, they deny Clinton the credit for having done a lot of Bush's work for him.
2007-07-31 08:00:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Interestingly, there was a fair amount of grumbling from the left about Clinton, but when it was shown that he had committed perjury and obstruction of justice he somehow became one of their heroes.
2007-07-31 09:20:13 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was forced into welfare reform by the republicans and NAFTA was one of his idiot moves
2007-07-31 08:06:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You ain't seen nuth'n yet. Just let Hillary get in there. China LOVES the Clintons. :)
2007-07-31 07:59:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
youre confused. seek guidance.
2007-07-31 07:58:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋