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.
He was about as ill adapted to his position as is this president. He had absolutely no respect for the dignity of the office he held. His only saving grace is that at least he was smart enough to realize that he would have to move to the center in order to survive in the white house and he embraced the contract with america in order to save his job.
I completely agree with you that Clinton had no respect for the dignity of the office of President, but he was far better suited to be President than Obama. Clinton at least had executive experience as Governor of Arkansas.
Clinton never moved to the center on anything. He vehemently opposed the Contract with America, which is why he vetoed the bills that were passed by Congress. Including the veto on the Welfare Reform Act, which the GOP controlled Congress passed anyway, a second time, with a veto-proof majority. Then there were all the budgets Clinton vetoed from 1995 through 2000. Thankfully, the GOP was able to override Clinton's vetoes the majority of the time, or there never would have been a balanced budget, much less a surplus.
Just because a President signs a law enacted by Congress does not necessarily mean they agree with the law. In fact, the exact opposite may be true. Clinton did not move toward the center. He was dragged kicking and screaming toward the center by the GOP controlled Congress.
Overall BC, IMO, made more good than bad decisions. His DLC leanings allowed for a pro-business agenda that was good for the economy. And yes, as others said, he was LUCKY to be around for both dotcom boom and Y2k hiring spurts. NAFTA was a wise decision, it allows us to sell textiles to Latin America for production, as opposed to sourcing all such products from Asia , who would not be buying the spun raw materials from us. Plus, I'd prefer Ford make a compact car in Mexico vs Asia, for the same reasons..our share of the components would be lower if Asian-sourced. He also wisely backed down after the Hillarycare debacle, instituting it would have LOWERED employment growth.
On the flipside, like most admins, he had no interest in private/public partnerships for R & D, and he promoted the big lie, that service jobs would be a sustainable path to retaining the middle class population at stable levels.
Overall BC, IMO, made more good than bad decisions. His DLC leanings allowed for a pro-business agenda that was good for the economy. And yes, as others said, he was LUCKY to be around for both dotcom boom and Y2k hiring spurts. NAFTA was a wise decision, it allows us to sell textiles to Latin America for production, as opposed to sourcing all such products from Asia , who would not be buying the spun raw materials from us. Plus, I'd prefer Ford make a compact car in Mexico vs Asia, for the same reasons..our share of the components would be lower if Asian-sourced. He also wisely backed down after the Hillarycare debacle, instituting it would have LOWERED employment growth.
On the flipside, like most admins, he had no interest in private/public partnerships for R & D, and he promoted the big lie, that service jobs would be a sustainable path to retaining the middle class population at stable levels.
Overall, though, more good than bad.
Were you aware that the GOP wrote NAFTA and GATT? NAFTA began in 1984 when Reagan was President. It was also introduced by President Bush in 1991, but Congress was controlled by Democrats so the treaty was tabled by the Senate Foreign Relations committee and never allowed a floor vote.
Clinton introduced a grand total of eight treaties (counting UN Covenants) during his two terms, and the only two he was able to ratify were those written by the GOP.
Beside the monica lewinsky scandal was Bill Clinton a good president?
And letting Bin Laden go 3 times and running us into a recession at the end of his term and deregulating Glass/Steagall and setting into motion the housing/bank CRASH. Oh sure he was!
I was Glitch, and given the Congress at the time, only a centrist Democrat could actually make the act pass. W/O BC, NAFTA would still not be in effect. Bush couldn't get it pass Congress, and Obama IMO would not sign it, if it meant being passed by the 2011 Congress.
In addition, the refreshing part of BC was the partnership with Newt; the last bi-partisanship of any lasting timeframe in my lifetime.
Glass-Steagall signing was awful, but consider BHO's top donor was Goldman Sachs, and the Street since Robert Rubin, has controlled economic policy via key advisers in every WH since than. More than GS, the naming of Rubin IMO was the worst thing BC EVER did. It led to Summers, Geitner, etc, which is like asking Bonnie Parker to guard Clyde Barrows.
Compared to the guy in the Whitehouse right now, yes Clinton was much better.
Clinton had some issues with his ethics and integrity in the Lewinsky scandal, but he was still a good president because he was able to work with a Republican majority in both houses of congress in the last 6 years of his presidency, and they were able to get a lot done.
I was Glitch, and given the Congress at the time, only a centrist Democrat could actually make the act pass. W/O BC, NAFTA would still not be in effect. Bush couldn't get it pass Congress, and Obama IMO would not sign it, if it meant being passed by the 2011 Congress.
Bush (41) could not get NAFTA approved by the Senate in 1991 because it was under Democrat control. Clinton could get NAFTA approved by the Senate in 1995 because the GOP controlled the Senate and they wrote the damn treaty!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
In addition, the refreshing part of BC was the partnership with Newt; the last bi-partisanship of any lasting timeframe in my lifetime.
There was no bipartisanship with Clinton, just his usual "politics of personal destruction." Obviously you forgot about the four budgets passed by Congress in 1995 with Clinton vetoing three of them, shutting down government for the first time in 11 years. Clinton would have vetoed the fourth budget the GOP controlled Congress passed in February 1996, but it was passed by a veto-proof majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Glass-Steagall signing was awful, but consider BHO's top donor was Goldman Sachs, and the Street since Robert Rubin, has controlled economic policy via key advisers in every WH since than. More than GS, the naming of Rubin IMO was the worst thing BC EVER did. It led to Summers, Geitner, etc, which is like asking Bonnie Parker to guard Clyde Barrows.
Legislation enacted by Congress becomes law automatically after ten calendar days (excluding Sundays) while Congress is in session, and NO President, regardless of political party, is going to veto a bill that has passed both houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority, like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act did in 1999.
I will not argue with you about Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary, but he certainly did far less damage than Clinton's appointment of George Tenet as Director of the CIA. Who can forget one of Tenet's very first acts? "Accidentally" bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, because they "used out of date tourist maps." What astonished me was that Bush (43) allowed Tenet to stay on as Director. That did not turn out so well for Bush either.
Rubin led to Glass-Steagall, his gift to CitiGroup, who later paid him $107 million until, under his direction, they imploded. Don't underestimate RR, as a weapon of mass destruction. Nor Summers, nor Geitner, also Wall St pawns carefully placed inside DC admins/circles.
Beside the monica lewinsky scandal was Bill Clinton a good president?
If we ignore his obvious moral and ethical failings, he was not half bad, and compared to 0bama, Bill was a giant.
I'll tell you one thing, Clinton's ability to give a good speech runs circles around "the 0ne". Take this last speech for example, 0bama was pleading, and demanding that congress 'pass this jobs bill", while Bill would have used the charm of his personality, his wit, and used empathy to convince them to pass it.
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.
What astonished me was that Bush (43) allowed Tenet to stay on as Director. 
That did not turn out so well for Bush either.
