Big Dog v. Gipper: What was more damaging to the progressive agenda?

[UdoKier]

What was more damaging to the progressive agenda?

Which of these is more to blame for the pickle we're in now?

[dr.zoidberg]

1. Heh.

I always saw it as Clinton doing what he had to do to actually get things done. He did a lot of compromising, which is essential. No compromise and nothing gets done. Absolutely nothing. His taste in women was poor, but hey, no one's perfect:) . No, Clinton's not a saint, but he's sure as hell not bad either.

[DemGirl7]

2. it looks like there's alot of Clinton blamers on here...too

I'm not saying all of the stuff that Clinton did was good...I have my few problems with him too, but to get some places you have to learn how to compromise...and unite

[JackRiddler]

3. Please, no one's blaming Clinton for anything...

It's not like he was ever President, any more than Reagan was. They both just played one on TV.

A real president would have said Monika was none of their damn business.

When the Republicans came after his dick, he would have smashed them back by calling them on their decade of cocaine dealing, bank plundering, Saddam support and genocide.

Of course, real presidents are verboten. They get shot in limousines.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Reagan Was a Peg-Pounder

The Reagan administration was a peg-setting experience and a training camp for the Banana Republicans currently undermining the American republic and ruining the country. Whatever little damage Reagan tried to do in the short run (The Democrats were then able to stop a lot of his nonsense), in the long run his administration helped forge the political platforms and the personal links that are currently keeping the Banana Republican regime in control.

[AX10]

5. Oh come on now DUers, Reagan was FAR MORE damaging...

than Clinton. Clinton put this country in a strong position.

-23 Million New Jobs under Clinton
-Violent Criminals off the streets
-African Americans, for once, had an opportunity to move up the ladder
-Low Abortion rates
-Lower taxes on the working class
-Small Business opportunities at an all time high
-Inovation
-Budget Surpluses beyond the eye
-Low Interest Rates
-A Secure and safe nation (9/11 occured on Bush's watch)

Yes, Clinton struck out on...
-airline deregulation
-media deregulation
-Enviromental protection
-and a few other things, but....

...Clinton was a respectable steward of our country for his 8 wonderful years of service (1993-2001)

Reagan gave us corporate deregulation, deficits, high interest rates, sold weapons to our enemies, gave the Christian Right a soapbox to promote their hate against women, minorities, liberals, homosexuals, etc.....

Reagan = A Bad President (though Ronnie was almost Saint like compared to Bush)
-In fairness, Reagan did PULL BACK from his right wing hard core agenda in the second term and he did try to cut the deficit in 1985-86.

In Bush's second term, Bush has gone from FAR-RIGHT to OVER THE DEEP, DEEP, DEEP, end. And let's be honest here, Nancy is sincerly trying to help those who are suffering with medical illnesses via her Pro-Stem Cell research. What has Laura Bush done? NOTHING!

Clinton = A Good President

[UdoKier]

6. I've never attacked Clinton's competence.

However, by completely rejecting progressive ideas and implementing an essentially moderate republican policy, he essentially validated the FALSE notion that liberal solutions to problems work. As for the economy, he was more or less a caretaker president, who tinkered very little with the tax code and encouraged the increased exportation of jobs overseas - a policy with short-term benefits and very serious long-term problems.

And like the late 80s boom before it, the 90s boom was built mostly on hype and speculation surrounding the "New Economy". Remember how people were saying that there would NEVER be another recession AGAIN? (Even as the US trade deficit and personal bankruptcies soared and outsourcing caused more and more people to go from good-paying single incomes to having to work two McJobs just to get by)

The Clinton economy of the 90s was essentially an unsustainable republican-style hype economy, this time built on consumer debt and dubious stock values rather than on government red ink as during Reagan's time.

Is it so much to ask that our politicians work on building an economy that will be stronger in the long term rather than just getting the quarterly unemployment numbers down?
FDR laid the foundation for what would become a more or less sustained boom that lasted until the early 70s. Eisenhower's federal highway program has created multiplier effects in a similar way. What did Clinton invest in? The internet? Great. So now people can go into hock to buy the "Land of the Lost" DVD collection on Amazon. In the meantime, our infrastructure nationwide is crumbling. Our energy needs are not being met by petroleum. Would a huge publics works project for solar, wind and geothermal have been so wacko?
How much better off would be now if such a thing were already online?

[JackRiddler]

7. Eight of years of Clinton

equals the necessary bridge between the Bushes.

I love watching faithful DUers come up with excuses now that Clinton and Bush Sr. are public butt-buddies.

Clinton was and remains one of them: the Republican Lite version, such as they need so as to make Bush Jr. possible.

[JackRiddler]

8. Eight of years of Clinton

equals the necessary bridge between the Bushes.

I love watching faithful DUers come up with excuses now that Clinton and Bush Sr. are public butt-buddies.

Clinton was and remains one of them: the Republican Lite version, such as they need so as to make Bush Jr. possible.

[UdoKier]

9. Correction: typo

I said:
"However, by completely rejecting progressive ideas and implementing an essentially moderate republican policy, he essentially validated the FALSE notion that liberal solutions to problems work."

I meant to say:

"However, by completely rejecting progressive ideas and implementing an essentially moderate republican policy, he essentially validated the FALSE notion that liberal solutions to problems don't work."

[LSdemocrat]

10. People who think Clinton could have done so much more ignore reality

The Congressional Democrats in 1992-94 completely ruined the progressivism of Bill's first two years. They immediately gutted serious investments in the American Economy. The discontent of moderate-conservative Congressional Democrats killed universal health care. These same center/center-right Democrats allowed the Repubs to paint Clinton as completely innefectual. It also didn't hurt Repubs that congressional Dems in 1992-94 were way too set in their ways. They assumed that they would always have power.

After 1994, Clinton HAD to deal with the reality of a Republican Congress. He couldn't bring the country into perpetual gridlock with shutdown after shut down. After a certain point, you have to work with what you have and make the best deal you can.

If you want someone to blame for the mess we're in now, blame the whole 2000 election mess. Florida, Nader, the Supreme Court, the RNC for hiring agitators, the DNC for doing nothing, the media's relentless negative coverage of Al Gore.