Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
nycflasher said:It is, to open-minded people.
freeandfun1 said:not really. the products (high-tech) that drove our economy during the 1990's were products originally developed for the military under Reagan's years of spending on defense. Clinton allowed for the commercialization of many technologies (such as CDMA technology, the internet, and many others). So frankly, the credit does, to some extent, have to be shared. But one has to admit that Clinton's "inaction" is really what drove the economy of the 90's and it is also what ruined it.
DKSuddeth said:thats why I made sure to mention in its entirety. commercializing those revolutions fueled the economy even further after reagan. I'd split it about 70/30 favoring reagan.
freeandfun1 said:i would agree. but what are your thoughts on my comments about "inaction". Would you agree that Clinton's inaction was both good and bad?
DKSuddeth said:clintons inaction towards the end of his term helped create the downturn/recession. Leaving something alone for too long leaves the door open for stagnation. opening NAFTA and then doing nothing else was like rolling snake eyes. It was doomed to provide negative results for the american people.
freeandfun1 said:exactly. yet the media and the dems like to lay it all on Bush. The economy started tanking in late 1998 and early 1999 in Asia after Soros started dumping the Thai Baht on the currency markets. His "inaction" also led the Enron, GlobalXing, Worldcomm, etc., etc., etc.
Yet those on the left love to hail him as the "economic" chief.
...The speech itself was harsh, unreasonable, and pure Jimmy Carter. His themes were a) that Bush was a quasi-deserter, b) that he is an "extremist," c) that he is a warmonger, and d) that he is a liar. Mayor Koch wrote a book about Mayor Giuliani called "Nasty Man." I think of that phrase when studying Jimmy Carter.
His speech was not well delivered, which was not all that typical, because though he is no Cicero or Ronald Reagan you don't get to be president of the United States without being able to speak a little.
He began with, "My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm not running for president" an evocation of his 1976 line, "My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm running for president" (a line with which he began his acceptance speech, wittily).
He cited Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who both "faced their active military responsibilities with honor" unlike whom (you may ask)? "They knew the horrors of war, and later, as commanders-in-chief, they exercised restraint and judgment . . ." unlike whom?
And they did not "mislead us when it came to issues involving our nation's security" unlike whom?
As for John Kerry, "he showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction" unlike whom?
As Kate O'Beirne said, in the NR workspace, we might have expected such a speech from DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe ("The Macker," he calls himself) but from a former president? When the former president is Jimmy Carter yes.
He also laid great stress on human rights, which he styled his signature as president. But, in those days, when we talked about human rights, we meant, really, South Africa, the Philippines, Chile, and certain other Latin American countries. We never meant the Communist countries.
Carter skewered George W. Bush for ignoring human rights never mind that this president liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, which countries had two of the most hideous regimes in memory...
Franchise Player
Regular readers of this column may not be surprised to learn that we are not an admirer of Bill Clinton's character and politics. But we can't help appreciating a masterful performance, and Clinton certainly delivered one last night.
Clinton's speech was compellingly demagogic. Although the whole convention has kept Bush-bashing to a minimum, Clinton bashed Republicans with abandon:
Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world.
Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must. We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives.
Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.
Clinton's cleverest rhetorical device was to cast himself, repeatedly, as an ungrateful beneficiary of President Bush's tax cuts:
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank-you note--until I realized they were sending you the bill. . . .
On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. . . . The White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important. . . .
If you think it's good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.
Clinton employed similar faux self-deprecation in praising Kerry's Vietnam service while defusing the problem of his own lack of same:
During the Vietnam War, many young men--including the current president, the vice president and me--could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.
Then there was the sound bite of the evening:
Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists. Don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values.
That last line sounds almost profound, until you think about it and realize it's an obviosity. Did anyone ever say strength and wisdom are conflicting values? But when Clinton said they aren't, what his audience heard was: Kerry's tough, and he's not stupid like Bush. That Clinton can deliver a message like that and not seem to be Bush-bashing is testament to his awesome political talent.
The crowd loved it. Bill Clinton is the most legendary figure in the Democratic Party since John F. Kennedy, and there's no way to know if JFK would have cast such a shadow had he lived. This was a real event, and seeing it in person from the grandstand of the Fleet Center, with crowd noise so deafening it sometimes drowned out the ex-president's voice, was a real treat, like watching a great athlete perform (even if you're not rooting for the home team).
Why do Democrats love Bill Clinton so? Partly because he's so good at what he does, but mostly, as New York's junior senator said in introducing him, because "he showed Democrats how to win again."
"He showed Democrats how to win again." Is this true? Let's just say it's unproven. Of course, he was the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term as president. But when he took office, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Within two years, the party had lost both chambers. They made some gains in subsequent elections (in the House in 1996-2000 and the Senate in 2000), but not enough to make up for the 1994 losses.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton failed to get his vice president elected to succeed him. Clinton's supporters argue that Al Gore hurt himself by denying Clinton a central role in the campaign. Clinton's detractors contend that Gore's association with Clinton hurt him among voters disgusted by Clinton's immorality and scandal. Although these are competing explanations, they are not contradictory, and we'd say both are true. Both also provide evidence that Clinton's political talents are not transferable to other candidates.
Maybe some of the Clinton magic will rub off on John Kerry, and we'll be proved wrong come November. So far, though, the post-Clinton Democrats have looked like the Chicago Bulls without Michael Jordan.
bugman29102 said:Did any of the speakers at demorats convention register as sex offenders. I thought I saw at least one speaker who was caught in a sex asct with a young girl in our Oval Office. It seems the far left leaders have "Pants " trouble- clinton with keeping his in his pants and Berger with stuffing secret papers in his pants. The streets of Boston must be very safe this week as it seems most of the questionable characters are lock in the convention center!!! lol,lol-- What a bunch of sickeys!!
nycflasher said:It is, to open-minded people.
