Jump to content

Why do CONs hate Clinton when he's one of them?


Heretic
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the March 2014 issue of Harper's. Given the folowling, I can't figure why CONs continually demonize Clinton when he 's done more to advance their cause than most Repubs.

 

Nothing Left The long, slow surrender of American liberals

By Adolph Reed Jr.

...

Most telling, though, is the reinvention of the Clinton Administration as a halcyon time of progressive success. Bill Clinton’s record demonstrates, if anything, the extent of Reaganism’s victory in defining the terms of political debate and the limits of political practice. A recap of some of his administration’s greatest hits should suffice to break through the social amnesia. Clinton ran partly on a pledge of “ending welfare as we know it”; in office he both presided over the termination of the federal government’s sixty-year commitment to provide income support for the poor and effectively ended direct federal provision of low-income housing. In both cases his approach was to transfer federal subsidies — when not simply eliminating them — from impoverished people to employers of low-wage labor, real estate developers, and landlords. He signed into law repressive crime bills that increased the number of federal capital offenses, flooded the prisons, and upheld unjustified and racially discriminatory sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine. He pushed NAFTA through over strenuous objections from labor and many congressional Democrats. He temporized on his campaign pledge to pursue labor-law reform that would tilt the playing field back toward workers, until the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995 gave him an excuse not to pursue it at all. He undertook the privatization of Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, thereby fueling the student-debt crisis.

 

Notwithstanding his administration’s Orwellian folderol about “reinventing government,” his commitment to deficit reduction led to, among other things, extending privatization of the federal meat-inspection program, which shifted responsibility to the meat industry — a reinvention that must have pleased his former Arkansas patron, Tyson Foods, and arguably has left its legacy in the sporadic outbreaks and recalls that suggest deeper, endemic problems of food safety in the United States. His approach to health-care reform, like Barack Obama’s, was built around placating the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and its failure only intensified the blitzkrieg of for-profit medicine.

 

In foreign policy, he was no less inclined than Reagan or George H. W. Bush to engage in military interventionism. Indeed, counting his portion of the Somali operation, he conducted nearly as many discrete military interventions as his two predecessors combined, and in four fewer years. Moreover, the Clinton Administration initiated the “extraordinary rendition” policy, under which the United States claims the right to apprehend individuals without charges or public accounting so that they can be imprisoned anywhere in the world (and which the Obama Administration has explicitly refused to repudiate). Clinton also increased American use of “privatized military services” — that is, mercenaries.

 

The nostalgic mist that obscures this record is perfumed by evocations of the Clinton prosperity. Much of that era’s apparent prosperity, however, was hollow — the effects of first the tech bubble and then the housing bubble. His administration was implicated in both, not least by his signing the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act, which had established a firewall between commercial and investment banking in response to the speculative excesses that sparked the Great Depression. And, as is the wont of bubbles, first one and then the other burst, ushering in the worst economic crisis since the depression that had led to the passage of Glass–Steagall in the first place. To be sure, the Clinton Administration was not solely or even principally responsible for those speculative bubbles and their collapse. The Republican administrations that preceded and succeeded him were equally inclined to do the bidding of the looters and sneak thieves of the financial sector. Nevertheless, Clinton and the Wall Street cronies who ran his fiscal and economic policy — Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan — are no less implicated than the Republicans in having brought about the economic crisis that has lingered since 2008.

It is difficult to imagine that a Republican administration could have been much more successful in advancing Reaganism’s agenda. Indeed, Clinton made his predilections clear from the outset. “We’re Eisenhower Republicans here,” he declared, albeit exasperatedly, shortly after his 1992 victory. “We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 693
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From the March 2014 issue of Harper's. Given the folowling, I can't figure why CONs continually demonize Clinton when he 's done more to advance their cause than most Repubs.

Have you been sleeping? We've long credited him with signing good legislation including tax cuts and Welfare Reform, even if he didn't lift a finger or opposed them for a time.

 

And for getting to Repub free trade bills through Congress.

But we despise his deep corruption, his felonies and impeachable acts and his sociopathic dishonesty.

 

Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flip the question around then, and ask why so many liberals idolize the man.

 

Good point, Lews, although I think Clinton's popularity is not as intense among Liberals as it is among middle-of-the-roaders. AFAIK he is disliked by most Liberals and irrationally despised by extremist CONs.

EDIT:

I should also add that the latter's hatred of Hillary is even harder to fathom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good point, Lews, although I think Clinton's popularity is not as intense among Liberals as it is among middle-of-the-roaders. AFAIK he is disliked by most Liberals and irrationally despised by extremist CONs.

honestly, i consider him the best president in my lifetime. that's not saying much, though. they've pretty much all been $h!t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good point, Lews, although I think Clinton's popularity is not as intense among Liberals as it is among middle-of-the-roaders. AFAIK he is disliked by most Liberals and irrationally despised by extremist CONs.

 

 

is he really? i thought liberals like Clinton, sure he was a moderate, but he presided during this country's best times, possibly in our history.. I don't give him all the credit, not even most, but the 90's were pretty badass.

honestly, i consider him the best president in my lifetime. that's not saying much, though. they've pretty much all been $h!t.

 

I could agree with that, Reagan was good too, there's a reason so many Democrats voted for him, he wasn't as conservative as the TEA party people like to think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

is he really? i thought liberals like Clinton, sure he was a moderate, but he presided during this country's best times, possibly in our history.. I don't give him all the credit, not even most, but the 90's were pretty badass.

 

I could agree with that, Reagan was good too, there's a reason so many Democrats voted for him, he wasn't as conservative as the TEA party people like to think

to me...waco is the biggest blemish on the clinton record. i really don't care too much about him perjuring himself over a blow-job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you been sleeping? We've long credited him with signing good legislation including tax cuts and Welfare Reform, even if he didn't lift a finger or opposed them for a time.

 

And for getting to Repub free trade bills through Congress.

But we despise his deep corruption, his felonies and impeachable acts and his sociopathic dishonesty.

 

Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

 

Who is the "we" who have credited him with the "good" legislation? They are awfully few in number, especially on this site. As for the "corruption", they are mostly unproven bouts of wishful thinking with "gate" appended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly, i consider him the best president in my lifetime. that's not saying much, though. they've pretty much all been $h!t.

 

The BEST??? That's even harder to fathom than the RW's hatred of the Clintons, though the "$hit" part is accurate enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me...waco is the biggest blemish on the clinton record. i really don't care too much about him perjuring himself over a blow-job.

yeh, me neither... Waco was stupid, they coulda/shoulda just waited em out longer, they were already out there that long! Who woulda thunk those psychos would just let the children die though, I don't have much empathy for wacko cults, the only reason they exist is for people like Karesh to f*ck whoever he wants, including small children. So, f*ck that dude, and the stupid idiots who followed him.. too bad the kids got caught in the middle, but I couldn't care too much about the idiot adults who put themselves in that situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

is he really? i thought liberals like Clinton, sure he was a moderate, but he presided during this country's best times, possibly in our history.. I don't give him all the credit, not even most, but the 90's were pretty badass.

 

I don't think he deserves much credit at all - those good times were mostly due to the internet bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The BEST??? That's even harder to fathom than the RW's hatred of the Clintons, though the "$hit" part is accurate enough.

well, i think nixon was president in my birth year. so who else have i got? reagan talked real pretty, but he MASSIVELY expanded government

and granted amnesty to illegals. nixon and his war on drugs. reagan and his war on drugs. bush sr and his "new world order". bush jr. and his massive

increase in government and new world order. and obama escalating EVERYTHING each one of these whores did wrong to the point of total destruction.

so yeah....clinton is the most reasonable choice as "best".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This thread is mostly crackpot speculation which began before Clinton was elected. All of it, especially the Lewinski/Jones scandals were carefully orchestrated by the Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeh, me neither... Waco was stupid, they coulda/shoulda just waited em out longer, they were already out there that long! Who woulda thunk those psychos would just let the children die though, I don't have much empathy for wacko cults, the only reason they exist is for people like Karesh to f*ck whoever he wants, including small children. So, f*ck that dude, and the stupid idiots who followed him.. too bad the kids got caught in the middle, but I couldn't care too much about the idiot adults who put themselves in that situation

i just don't buy into the story. the government didn't give a $h!t about the kids. they only cared that the compound had an arsenal.

the government burned the kids alive. they obviously didn't give a $h!t whether or not any "abuse" was happening before that...even if

that crap was true. i've noticed the government loves to portray dissidents as perverts quite often, with the media in full support. maybe

koresh did have sex with teenage girls...maybe he didn't. but that attack on a facility they KNEW those kids were in was the greater

evil, regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, i think nixon was president in my birth year. so who else have i got? reagan talked real pretty, but he MASSIVELY expanded government

and granted amnesty to illegals. nixon and his war on drugs. reagan and his war on drugs. bush sr and his "new world order". bush jr. and his massive

increase in government and new world order. and obama escalating EVERYTHING each one of these whores did wrong to the point of total destruction.

so yeah....clinton is the most reasonable choice as "best".

 

LOL Sorry, I forget how young you are. Yeah, there's been a pretty bad lot since Nixon. Carter had potential but no delegating skills, The rest were drek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first half is dead wrong. Clinton is a rock star everywhere he goes.

 

Well, the ladies at my local Y love him but I don't think they're liberals. I think he scores among a large swath of MOTR Democrats. IMO, the only reason Liberals might like him is that he evokes an irrational rage among CONs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is mostly crackpot speculation which began before Clinton was elected.

 

Then you will have no trouble posting your proof of that on that thread.

 

Doing what no one else has done.

 

I tell you what.

 

Why don't you start with the scandal surrounding the death of Vince Foster?

 

Or the death of Ron Brown?

 

You think you can successfully debunk what I noted in either case?

 

I bet you can't.

 

In fact, I bet you don't even try.

 

Bet you run just like all the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Have you been sleeping? We've long credited him with signing good legislation including tax cuts and Welfare Reform, even if he didn't lift a finger or opposed them for a time.

 

And for getting to Repub free trade bills through Congress.

But we despise his deep corruption, his felonies and impeachable acts and his sociopathic dishonesty.

 

Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

 

Who is the "we" who have credited him with the "good" legislation? They are awfully few in number, especially on this site. As for the "corruption", they are mostly unproven bouts of wishful thinking with "gate" appended.

 

Every conservative commentator I recall credited him with it, sometimes too generously.

 

And as usual, I'm truly sorry you're so terribly ignorant about Clinton's crimes and impeachable acts. :glare:

 

There were many boxes filled with evidence of them, but when the Senate refused to hold a full trial, they were sealed for 50 years, thanks to Clinton's political blackmail.

 

This thread is mostly crackpot speculation which began before Clinton was elected. All of it, especially the Lewinski/Jones scandals were carefully orchestrated by the Right.

 

Stunning that anyone would express such a strong opinion from a foundation of appalling ignorance. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you will have no trouble posting your proof of that on that thread.

 

Doing what no one else has done.

 

I tell you what.

 

Why don't you start with the scandal surrounding the death of Vince Foster?

 

Or the death of Ron Brown?

 

You think you can successfully debunk what I noted in either case?

 

I bet you can't.

 

In fact, I bet you don't even try.

 

Bet you run just like all the rest.

 

Why is it suddenly my job to disprove unproven crackpot conspiracy theories? First, how about some solid proof that any of this nonsense is true instead of demanding proof from me that it DIDN'T happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Every conservative commentator I recall credited him with it, sometimes too generously.

 

And as usual, I'm truly sorry you're so terribly ignorant about Clinton's crimes and impeachable acts. :glare:

 

There were many boxes filled with evidence of them, but when the Senate refused to hold a full trial, they were sealed for 50 years, thanks to Clinton's political blackmail.

 

I'd advise you to stop listening to CONcomms and start listening to real news.

 

Stunning that anyone would express such a strong opinion from a foundation of appalling ignorance. :wacko:

 

 

Agreed. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Every conservative commentator I recall credited him with it, sometimes too generously.

 

And as usual, I'm truly sorry you're so terribly ignorant about Clinton's crimes and impeachable acts. :glare:

 

There were many boxes filled with evidence of them, but when the Senate refused to hold a full trial, they were sealed for 50 years, thanks to Clinton's political blackmail.

 

I'd advise you to stop listening to CONcomms and start listening to real news.

 

The Washington Post isn't "real news?" CNN?

 

The American Spectator? National Review? Washington Times? WSJ?

 

I can't believe my own eyes? Duuuh. :glare:

 

 

 

 

Stunning that anyone would express such a strong opinion from a foundation of appalling ignorance. :wacko:

 

Agreed. :P

So what felonies and impeachable acts did Clinton arguably commit?

Wow us with your knowledge. :glare:

 

And no cheating with Google.

 

Why is it suddenly my job to disprove unproven crackpot conspiracy theories? First, how about some solid proof that any of this nonsense is true instead of demanding proof from me that it DIDN'T happen?

 

Why don't you list briefly what our accusations are and what evidence we have to back them up?

 

You don't have the slightest idea, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...