Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His first two years were a disaster as his admin could not get out of it's own way. Putting Hillary in font of health care reform did not help and the GOP jumped on it and beat the Dems into the ground. I'm sure there were other, more nuanced reasons, but that was a big factor
the man most generally credited with our modern gutter divisive politics started his B$ and here we are accuse democrats of everything under the sun true or not dioesnt matter a republican creation that works thank newt gingrich
the man most generally credited with our modern gutter divisive politics started his B$ and here we are accuse democrats of everything under the sun true or not dioesnt matter a republican creation that works thank newt gingrich
All the "wonderful attributes" of the Clinton administration were actually a result of the Gingrich Congress, not Clinton. Clinton reluctantly went along with many of the measures, but his role was rather passive.
Clinton's ACTIVE roles were disasters for America-
NAFTA
China trade status
elimination of "red lining"
These three have levied immeasurable damage to the US, the effects of which have persisted to today.
The House often changes in a President's second term. A first term is typically when the voters give a new President a House majority to work with.
This seems to be the way the voters like to keep a 2-party balance in Washington. The Senate terms last so long it's much harder to turn over, while most House members tend to be re-elected to a second term or lose after their first.
I think this is how the founding fathers wanted it to be balanced. They definitely didn't want a multi-party democracy like the Brits have, nor did the want the leaders of the nation to be chosen from the winning party, like the Brits have.
They wanted 2 parties and allow the voters to elect their leaders directly. That's why it's so difficult to elect a President in a 3rd party here. Our Constitution is loaded for 2 big parties, but it allowed for smaller parties to emerge. Probably because they foresaw a big party could become stagnant or could fracture.
That happens in G.Britain all the time, and often leaves Parliament in a mess with no strong leadership. This was especially messy when the King held the most governmental power of all.
King George the 4th was mad as a hatter, and our founders didn't want someone crazy leading us with as much power as the King.
Clinton's ACTIVE roles were disasters for America-
NAFTA....
NAFTA was mostly crafted during the George HW Bush administration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
