Clinton More Trustworthy Than Bush?

[jillian]

Who'd a thunk it?


Which man would you say was more honest as president?

President Bush 26% 1060 votes

President Clinton 74% 3041 votes
Total: 4101 votes


This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed
therein.



Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

 

[dilloduck]

Who'd a thunk it?


Which man would you say was more honest as president?

President Bush 26% 1060 votes

President Clinton 74% 3041 votes
Total: 4101 votes


This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed
therein.



Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy.

That settles it for me----from now on it's "Honest Bill" in the history books !

 

[William Joyce]

It's depressing. But I think Clinton was more of a presence-of-mind liar. Bush doesn't have the presence of mind to lie. He's just a moron.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I will say the CNN poll is surprising, but I will accept it. The extreme differences in the events facing the Bush and Clinton administrations does help explain the results to me.

However, you top poll, for lack of a better word, is a complete pile of s**t. Internet polls such as the one you list are ineffective and incredibly biased. They fail to meet EVERY SINGLE criteria of a good poll. If I were you, I would take that down.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Who'd a thunk it?


Which man would you say was more honest as president?

President Bush 26% 1060 votes

President Clinton 74% 3041 votes
Total: 4101 votes


This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed
therein.



Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

How much you want to bet the pollsters randomly selected citizens of San Francisco for this poll. They should have asked which President do think actually knows the definition of the word "is"?

 

[Dr Grump]

How much you want to bet the pollsters randomly selected citizens of San Francisco for this poll. They should have asked which President do think actually knows the definition of the word "is"?

Name the bet....

 

[KarlMarx]

This proves Josef Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, right when he said "A lie told often enough is eventually accepted as the truth". It also proves that Hitler was right, the public has a short attention span and a short memory.

The Demo-rats , the MSM, and the Left (did I repeat myself?) have painted GWB as a liar, they've said it often enough, got their bleating masses of mindless granola munching followers to say it often enough so now it is seen as true.

Partly, this is Bush's fault, because his administration never challenged allegations, no matter how outrageous, by an out of control media that was out to get him. Naming Tony Snow as press secretary may help, but it won't be enough.

I see Bush as honest, but a total failure at reaching out to people. He's a terrible public speaker, is too loyal to his staff (he doesn't seem to fire those that probably should be) and tries too hard to work with the lousy stinking back stabbing Left.

His administration has been relatively free of scandal, in spite of the Left's constant attempts to manufacture one.

Clinton, on the other hand, was caught in a lie, not only on camera ("I did not have sex with that woman"), but under oath. His administration had more "gates" than the ancient city of Jerusalem (Filegate,Travelgate, Bimbogate, Whitewater-gate, Monicagate....) Clinton's administration was scandal plagued because the people he named to key positions were dishonest, just as he is.

 

[Dr Grump]

This proves Josef Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, right when he said "A lie told often enough is eventually accepted as the truth". It also proves that Hitler was right, the public has a short attention span and a short memory.
The Demo-rats , the MSM, and the Left (did I repeat myself?) have painted GWB as a liar, they've said it often enough, got their bleating masses of mindless granola munching followers to say it often enough so now it is seen as true.
Partly, this is Bush's fault, because his administration never challenged allegations, no matter how outrageous, by an out of control media that was out to get him. Naming Tony Snow as press secretary may help, but it won't be enough.
I see Bush as honest, but a total failure at reaching out to people. He's a terrible public speaker, is too loyal to his staff (he doesn't seem to fire those that probably should be) and tries too hard to work with the lousy stinking back stabbing Left.
His administration has been relatively free of scandal, in spite of the Left's constant attempts to manufacture one.
Clinton, on the other hand, was caught in a lie, not only on camera ("I did not have sex with that woman"), but under oath. His administration had more "gates" than the ancient city of Jerusalem (Filegate,Travelgate, Bimbogate, Whitewater-gate, Monicagate....) Clinton's administration was scandal plagued because the people he named to key positions were dishonest, just as he is.

Just because somebody doesn't come right out and lie, doesn't mean they aren't a liar. Is somebody lying if they know something but refuse to divulge something? As for the different "gates" re Clinton, the right went after him like a rabid dog. How many of those "gates" had an ounce of truth to them? There is no doubt when it came to women, Clinton was weak. Very weak. I think GW is incompetent at best. Maybe the best president of the past 14 years would have been the one with Clinton's brains and GW's morals...

 

[jillian]

Just because somebody doesn't come right out and lie, doesn't mean they aren't a liar. Is somebody lying if they know something but refuse to divulge something? As for the different "gates" re Clinton, the right went after him like a rabid dog. How many of those "gates" had an ounce of truth to them? There is no doubt when it came to women, Clinton was weak. Very weak. I think GW is incompetent at best. Maybe the best president of the past 14 years would have been the one with Clinton's brains and GW's morals...

Depends on what you think is moral. I'm sure Bush's morals as regards his wife are just fine. It's his morality as regards the rest of the world that I think is a problem.

Clinton and he had it reversed...Clinton's morality as regards his wife was horrible... but as regards the rest of the world???

 

[KarlMarx]

Just because somebody doesn't come right out and lie, doesn't mean they aren't a liar. Is somebody lying if they know something but refuse to divulge something? As for the different "gates" re Clinton, the right went after him like a rabid dog. How many of those "gates" had an ounce of truth to them? There is no doubt when it came to women, Clinton was weak. Very weak. I think GW is incompetent at best. Maybe the best president of the past 14 years would have been the one with Clinton's brains and GW's morals...

They don't call it "Bolshevik University" for nothing, do they?

How many of those gates had a shred of truth to them? Umm... all of them!

The "right" went after him like a rabid dog because Clinton was suspected of breaking the law. The special prosecutor's office by the way was not appointed by Congress but by the president. Clinton was prosecuted under a sexual harassment law that he signed into law.

Sure, adultery is not a crime, but lying under oath is. President Clinton did that. He lost his license to practice law in Arkansas as a result. That is not because of a vast right wing conspiracy, that is the American Bar Association's doing.

I'm no fan of GWB myself. For one thing, he is too willing to compromise on the ideals of the conservatives that put him and the Congressional Republicans in office i.e. limited government spending, lower taxation, downsizing government, improving border security, and so on. For that reason, I pray for another Ronald Reagan rather than another George W Bush.

The problem with Bush is that he is too reticent and does not explain himself well. Kennedy, FDR, Reagan all were good communicators and as a result were very popular.

 

[Gunny]

Depends on what you think is moral. I'm sure Bush's morals as regards his wife are just fine. It's his morality as regards the rest of the world that I think is a problem.

Clinton and he had it reversed...Clinton's morality as regards his wife was horrible... but as regards the rest of the world???

It must be nice to live in your little world. No matter how many times you get shot right out of the sky, you'll turn right around and post such drivel as this.

I believe "oblivious to reality" applies to you quite nicely.

 

[dilloduck]

Depends on what you think is moral. I'm sure Bush's morals as regards his wife are just fine. It's his morality as regards the rest of the world that I think is a problem.

Clinton and he had it reversed...Clinton's morality as regards his wife was horrible... but as regards the rest of the world???

Clinton loved the rest of the world just fine--he even gave China secrets. I'm just not sure he liked America very much.

 

[jillian]

They don't call it "Bolshevik University" for nothing, do they?

First... "THEY" DON'T call it Bolshevik University. It's SUNY Binghamton and not a Bolshevik class to be found. Nor am I anything but a capitalist, so silly argument. You can do way better than that from what I've seen.

How many of those gates had a shred of truth to them? Umm... all of themTE]

Funny. When the illegal things Bush does are raised, and Cheney, and Rove and Libby and everyone else associated with this admin, all I see written is how there's no "proof". AND THAT'S WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER because no one in this Republican Congress is doing their oversight job. Who's going to investigate things if no one will even give the Dems a hearing room to ask the questions. Even people like Arlen Spector, who try to do the right thing, are threatened with the loss of their committee chairmanships if they make noise. Tom DE-LAY changed the configuration of the ehics committee after he was censured because he didn't like the fact that the Republicans on the Commiittee didn't like what he was doing.

So let's talk about truth.... Clinton had the Republicans up his butt for six years and Starr mentioned Whitewater once in his report and the blue dress about 1,000 times.

The double standard is astounding.

And, frankly, I don't care who the President sleeps with. Clinton just should have said "its none of your damned business" when the questions were asked.

The "right" went after him like a rabid dog because Clinton was suspected of breaking the law. The special procesutor's office by the way was not appointed by Congress but by the president. Clinton was prosecuted under a sexual harrassment law that he signed into law.

And they GOT NOTHING!! And the Republicans got rid of the Special Prosecutor law as soon as they took power. Gee...wonder why that was. Could it be because they got to see first hand how it could be misused?

Sure, adultery is not a crime, but lying under oath is. President Clinton did that. He lost his license to practice law in Arkansas as a result. That is not because of a vast right wing conspiracy, that is the American Bar Association's doing.

Gee...let's put Bush under oath and ask the questions. And all I'm seeing on the Board right now is how poor Scooter Libby is going to be prosecuted for perjury and how that's not REALLY indicative of a crime. Heh...

I'm sure the same will be said when Rove is indicted this week.

I'm no fan of GWB myself. For one thing, he is too willing to compromise on the ideals of the conservatives that put him and the Congressional Republicans in office i.e. limited government spending, lower taxation, downsizing government, improving border security, and so on. For that reason, I pray for another Ronald Reagan rather than another George W Bush.

And what do you think would have been found if Bush I didn't pardon the Iran/Contra folk before they could even be tried? All that happened under Reagan's watch. What I will say is that Bush I made me long for Reagan. Bush II makes me long for Bush I.... And EVERYTHING now makes me want Clinton back...warts and all.

The problem with Bush is that he is too reticent and does not explain himself well. Kennedy, FDR, Reagan all were good communicators and as a result were very popular.

No. The problem with Bush is he is the arrogant son of a powerful family and he thinks rules and laws apply to everyone but him. The problem with Bush is he lacks curiousity and is ignorant about the way the world works. So he gets an idea in his head, or Cheney decides something, and he figures that all of us plebians are stupid, so screw us, and he figures that he has the right to do anything he wants....whether the Country wants it or not. Just people are getting fed up about it....except for that 29% that still like the guy.

I'm just grateful that the country has figured it out. The trick now is to stop the garbage he's doing...whether in surveillance, failed tax policy, international policy, the environment and everything else he's screwed with before he trashes this country irreperably.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't forget how Clinton helped modernize the Red Chinese missile fleet!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20482

President Clinton wrote the waivers for Hughes, Loral and Motorola. President Clinton took money directly from COSTIND operations in the form of donations from the same American companies, and in some cases, donations directly from COSTIND related front companies. President Clinton paraded many of the projects as part of his golden era of economic expansion. President Clinton personally arranged for Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz to meet COSTIND Vice Minister General Shen.

The spectacular success of this single Chinese army unit turned China into a regional power that dominates Asia and a world power capable of flexing military force anywhere on earth. It is no surprise that General Ding and COSTIND recently won the honors of the Chinese communist party. In early October 1998, Vice Premiere Zhu Rongji selected COSTIND over the Chinese Army Central Military Command (CMC) to run all space programs, including manned space flight.

 

[jillian]

Don't forget how Clinton helped modernize the Red Chinese missile fleet!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20482

And Bush handed our debt over to the Chinese so they can bankrupt us any time they call in our debt.

Which do you think is more of an immediate threat to us?

BTW, if it's in Worldnetdaily, I'm pretty sure your info isn't real reliable or is completely distorted.

 

[Annie]

And Bush handed our debt over to the Chinese so they can bankrupt us any time they call in our debt.

Which do you think is more of an immediate threat to us?

BTW, if it's in Worldnetdaily, I'm pretty sure your info isn't real reliable or is completely distorted.

media matters/world net daily=pot.kettle.black

 

[jillian]

media matters/world net daily=pot.kettle.black

No, I'd say capitalhillblue = worldnet daily.


*edit* and bloggers' opinion pieces aren't generally reliable either.

 

[manu1959]

i dont care what 3,000 liberals allow thier daughters to do....my daughter will not be interning for mr clinton

 

[Annie]

No, I'd say capitalhillblue = worldnet daily.


*edit* and bloggers' opinion pieces aren't generally reliable either.

And that is the difference. I have no problem with things written from biased sites, which is why when I run against some site I'm unfamiliar with, I read more on that site to get some sort of idea what, if any, their agenda might be. Then I have a sense of what weight I'll give things posted from those sites. It's called, discrimination-not always a bad thing.

 

[jillian]

And that is the difference. I have no problem with things written from biased sites, which is why when I run against some site I'm unfamiliar with, I read more on that site to get some sort of idea what, if any, their agenda might be. Then I have a sense of what weight I'll give things posted from those sites. It's called, discrimination-not always a bad thing.

Everything has a slant. But some things are more reliable than others. When sites like newsmax and the washtimes lie, exaggerate or misstate repeatedly, they aren't worth looking at, IMO.

I agree regarding discrimination and choosing what you think is realistic. But I'm kind of curious as to where you think Media Matters ever lied. BTW, I know you said it's backed by Soros, but I'm not certain that's correct, nor do I think that necessarily hurts it's credibility. What hurts something's credibility is when you can point to lies. For example, I know that Rush has lied because I hear him describe things said by people and then hear the statements made by the people whose statements he's mischaracterized. And he's rarely truthful. Annie Coulter, too... many of her statements are proven lies or out and out unsubstantiated garbage. Makes it kind of easy to figure out who/what to ignore.