Clinton - What do you remember most?

[Clarkmeister]

Now that we are 2 years removed from Bill Clinton's presidency, what do you all take from it? Forget all the sex stuff, what about his actual policies and impact on our nation?

I remember thinking two things during his presidency:

1. I thought his foreign policy sucked. We let the whole Milosovich (sp) situation get way worse than it ever should have gotten. And in general we weren't strong enough.

2. I remember thinking that Allan Greenspan was The Most Powerful Man in the Universe and gave him the credit for the economy's health rather than Clinton.

Now we have a president who is too strong with his international policy and suddenly Greenspan looks Mortal.

Anyways, (at the risk of making this too complicated) what do you all remember most about Clinton and on a scale of 1-10 how do you rate his presidency? Also, please provide a frame of reference by rating Reagan, Bush the First and Dubya (to date).

Reagan: 7.5
Bush the First: 8
Willie: 7
Dubya: 5

[Dynasty]

I'll remember that President Clinton was a lying scumbag.

I don't think Clinton accomplished much of anything. He's not going to be given credit for the good economy of the 1990's by historians any more than Eisenhower gets credit for the 1950's economy (yes, I know there was a recession during Eisenhower's presidency). Clinton rode on the back of a good economy and did nothing with it.

I think Clinton's most enduring legacy beyond being a lying scumbag is that his early incompetancy cost the Demorcratic party both houses of Congress and paved the way for conservatism to be the dominant ideology in the country.

If you want numbers:

Reagan: 8.5 (led the Soviet Union down the road to collapse)
Bush the First: 6 (won an important war, did little else)
Clinton: 4.5 (what the hell did he do all day?)
Duby: 7 (winning a war, longterm tax cutting implemented)

[B-Man]

I will remember what he almost accomplished--peace in the Middle East (well, at least between Israel and the Palestinians). I used to think a peaceful solution was impossible, but he nearly pulled it off through years of diplomacy culminating at Camp David in 2000. If Arafat had accepted the deal which he was offerred at Camp David (and which he now says he wishes he had accepted), and peace had prevailed, Clinton would have had that tremendous accomplishment as his lasting legacy.

Instead, his legacy is, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

(oh yeah, and that he oversaw the longest peacetime expansion in our economy's history, but I'm not sure how much credit he should get for that).

[Dynasty]

Even if Arafat accepted the deal, there would not have been peace. There are too many groups in the Middle East who are committed to destroying Israel. The signing of a "peace" agreement would have been a rallying cry for all those groups to launch more attacks.

[B-Man]

You very well may be right. But unfortunately, we will never know.

[Dynasty]

unfortunately, we will never know.

Perhaps we are fortunate not to know- or to have lived through even more violence in Israel.

[patrick dicaprio]

how could you rate bush the first over reagan??!!

the thing i will remember most about clinton is his creative use of cigars and the shredder working 24/7 (or at least his wife's).

Pat

[HDPM]

If by the "sex stuff" you are including the perjury and the forcible rape accusation, I can't get past it. If you are just excluding the consensual sex acts with women over whom he had power, I can put it aside. (Even though it interfered with his job and made the Oval Office a joke) As far as policy, Clinton accomplished nothing good. He did manage to get more gun control through. So I give him F's on that. He did manage to screw up the military. His anti-terror policy was ridiculous. Lob a few cruise missiles and declare victory. LOL. He kowtowed to Arafat and still couldn't get a Middle East peace deal, so that was a total waste. But Clinton's whole career is a total waste of time, unless you like the damage he did. Let's not forget the pardons or the autocratic theft of western lands (in one case to benefit a donor) He sold out to the Chinese too. He is a lying, draft dodging, impeached, rapist, perjuring POS. So here's my ranking:

GW: 7, but could go higher or lower very easily because of the current instability.

Clinton: 1.5. Incompetence prevented more damage to the country.

GHWB41: 5.5. Did OK. Lost to Clinton by running a lousy campaign and the stupid "read my lips" BS. You get marked down for losing to Clinton. Did lay some groundwork for the strong economy. Did pretty well in the Gulf War, but did not resolve certain problems that Clinton totally botched.

Reagan: 9. Got the country out from under both Watergate and the disaster of the Carter presidency and engineered the end of the Cold War. When he came in a loser country like Iran had us by the short ones. We had lost any semblance of acting like a superpower. Can't get a 10 because of the scandals and the fact he couldn't curtail social spending. And opposed gun control even after getting shot unlike another guy who took rounds that day. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Clarkmeister]

If I judged Clinton's presidency as you do I would have to slaughter Reagans rating as well. As truly despicable lying to the American people on live TV is, its not nearly as bad as the illegal [censored] that went on under Reagans direction. I ranked Reagan as high as I did because I overlooked his stuff just like I overlooked Clinton's. Maybe its just me, but I think that violating the constitution, violating international law and running clandestine wars in multiple foreign nations is light years worse than being a womanizer and lying about it.

Reagan did a lot with regard to the Soviet collapse. He also took the nation from zero national debt to the monster whose interest payments now eat up a third of each years' annual budget. I firmly believe that the economy that Bush inherited was completely the fault of Reagan.

as far as your comments on gun control..........

Because I am largely ignorant on the subject, why don't you let me know what it currently takes to get a gun license. Please include an editorial detailing measures you think that should be repealed and proposed measures you think should not be passed.

As far as myself, I think that extensive background checks and some reasonable amount of training (taking a class and "graduating") should be required to get a license. Purchase of a firearm should require a license and yet another background check. The 3 day waiting period that I *think* is law currently seems reasonable to me.

Like I said, I don't even know if my views are more or less extreme than current law. From what I know of the Brady bill, I don't think it was that unreasonable and am unsure why you would slam the man.

[Adnirol]

I remember him as a lying scumbag who inherited an economy on an upswing, tried to take the credit, turned the econpmy upside down and is trying to blame bush for his poor fiscal policy.

My ratings:

Reagan: 9.5
Bush the First: 8
Willie: 4
Dubya: 8.5
Nixon 6
Johnson 3
Kennendy 7.5
Truman 8
Eisenhower 8.5

[Clarkmeister]

Yes.

Reagan did too many negative things for me to rate him higher than Bush. Bush had to do a lot of work to create a workable budget after Reagan. He really did an A+ job dealing with the Iraq thing, particularly in his dealings with the coalition. His downfall was simply not admitting that the economy was in the dumper. If he had been elected to another term it would have been him and not Clinton who reaped the benefits of the groundwork he laid in his 4 years. It simply took too long to right the ship after Reagan's 8 years.

[Clarkmeister]

While you knock Bush Sr. for letting Clinton get elected, maybe you can look at it like this:

If Bush had won, Clinton doesn't get elected. If Clinton doesn't get elected, there can't be multiple Anti-Clinton backlashes in the general elections. If there aren't those backlashes, the Republicans don't get control of both the House, Senate and Presidency for the first time in 50 years.

You should therefore give Bush Sr a 10. He sacrificed himself to give the Republicans the Triple Crown 10 years later. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[HDPM]

"why don't you let me know what it currently takes to get a gun license"

In states that remain free, nothing. There is no such thing as a gun license. Most states that allow concealed carry require a license to carry concealed. Some states like Illinois have all kinds of requirements to simply own guns. I think all of these measures violate the constitution though. After all, what kind of license do you need to buy a book or go to a church? The Brady law is wrong. The "assault weapons" ban is wrong. The regular-capacity magazine ban was wrong. Basically I think the gun control act of 1968 which was directly lifted from Hitler's gun control law should be repealed as well as all gun control laws passed thereafter. Until 1968 any citizen could buy weapons through the mail without having to buy from a federally licensed gun dealer. Weapons were available at hardware stores and in catalogues. Things worked just fine, except where there were gun laws.
Most gun control laws started as efforts to disarm minorities. Gun control is a racist legacy. After all, in my state the only gun control law for a long time was a statute prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition to Indians.
So to answer some of your questions, look to states with the highest crime rates, because these are the ones that probably have some licensing requirements for gun owners. Many of the "reasonable" gun control proposals you favor (and so do many people who own guns) I believe are unconstitutional. My view is a minority view, so I'm not a great barometer. I do not think citizens need permission from the government to exercise basic constitutional rights. I MIGHT not object to a truly instant background check where ALL record of a transaction were COMPLETELY destroyed by the government. (The Reno Justice Department illegally kept Brady background checks, a clear first step to gun registration and confiscation.) I would make it a life sentence felony for any government official to use such a record in any way after the background check was passed. If a background check took longer than 10 minutes, the gun could be purchased. Anyone failing the background check could be investigated. Clinton/Reno did not prosecute ANYBODY for attempting to purchase a firearm after flunking a Brady check. So what good is the law? Well, it gave the government information on law abiding citizens exercising their rights. It was domestic spying, which we stopped tolerating when it came to freedom of speech.
Oh, there is no federal "waiting period" if a state has an instant background check. Some states have waiting periods.
I will get a link to some scholarly pro-gun material. It's good stuff even if they're not as big of lunatics as I am. I will have to put it in a follow-up post.
Oh, I would also repeal the NFA from the 1930's and the amendments thereto. This is the law that requires registration and the payment of a transfer tax on "Class III" weapons, machine guns, silencers, other cool stuff. It was the anti Al Capone and Bonnie and Clyde law. I don't own any Class III's because it is a big hassle and expensive and the ATF looks at you and I don't really need anything like that. But some of that stuff could be real fun on rainy days and is totally legal in my state. And it's your right to have it, so why not?:D

[HDPM]

Here it is: Guns R Good (http://gunscholar.com/) /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Ray Zee]

i remember thaat the clinton administration put aside gobs of land for the future. i also saw them preserve much wilderness. then i saw bush bring in to his cabinet all those from big busines and start repealing all the good clinton did for the environment. thats all i care about. the air i breath the water i drink and the animals in the woods. as chief joseph said. after you cut the last tree and spoil all the world see if you can eat your money.(thats not the exact quote of course just my rendition)

[Zeno]

I remember that he felt my pain. I hope he felt all of it.

By the way, I rate Clinton a 10 - on entertainment value. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

-Zeno

[Clarkmeister]

There's really no point in debating it since you state that you are fringe in your beliefs, but it seems rather ludicrous to me that we need licenses to drive cars, operate boats, fish, hunt, etc but not to own and operate a gun.

Requiring an ownership license isn't an infringement of someone's rights. Its merely a simple public safety measure. I'm baffled that it would even be an issue. Its not like making it illegal to purchase them.

[HDPM]

"need licenses to drive cars, operate boats, fish, hunt, etc but not to own and operate a gun."

But you don't need a license to read a book, go to a political rally, go to church, or hire a lawyer if you are charged with a crime. Certainly licensing these activities would promote public safety. The difference is that driving, hunting, fishing, and boating are not constitutionally protected to the degree gun ownership is, where freedom of speech is. Thus, licensing in inappropriate IMO. Why should you have to prove competence to fire a gun to the government to own one when you do not have to prove skill at reading or voting? Voting brings up an area where gun control proponents could make some head way. You have to register to vote, so why not register guns? I think though that the government has a legitimate interest in making sure peole can only vote once, but gun ownership does not affect anyone else (only misuse affects anybody else and gun control does nothing about that) and is none of the government's business. In fact, when you look at the reasons behind the second amendment, the government should not be allowed to know which citizens have guns. Because it's not about deer hunting.

[IrishHand]

are not constitutionally protected to the degree gun ownership is
Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to own a gun. The "right to bear arms" so commonly cited by gun activists was taken directly from British common law, and refers to the right to carry a sword. It has absolutely nothing to do with guns. I'm not a big fan of adapting one's reading of the constitution to incorporate changes in meaning that couldn't possibly have been contemplated then. (Otherwise, I'm interested in asserting my right to carry around a bazooka when I have to be away from my tank.)

As for the presidential rankings - I've gotta side with Mr. Zee to a certain extent. I have a tough time grading presidents on the basis of "the economoy" or their supposed effect on it. It takes years and years before the effect of an economic policy can be acutarely judged. Because of that, it's tough for top economists to agree on who's policies resulted in what consequences given their 4- or 8-year lifespans. I therefore try to focus on things that are tangible and easily discernible - and being a womanizer/adulterer is pretty irrelevant in my mind. To me, the only difference between the Nixon/Reagan/Clinton group and all the rest is that the former group got caught while the latter group is allowed to maintain this ridiculous image above reproach (which is of course the goal when you're shooting for the presidency).

Reagan: 5 (Russian resolution completely outweighed by blatant illegalities and lying regarding covert international activities - gathering information should be covert, not funding wars and terrorists then having someone else take the blame)
Bush the First: 4 (anyone could have attacked Iraq - and his failure to do it properly partly led to the current situation)
Willie: 7 (foreign policy pretty tame, plenty of positive domestic initiatives, including hugely positive turn towards protecting environment, would have been a point higher if not for mindless actions last week in office)
Dubya: 6 (got lucky with 9/11, because without it, he's 4-and-out, has otherwise shown no interest in improving the US domestically or internationally)

I also find it interesting that nearly every presidential rating above is completely partisan - usually a pile of 7-9s for the Republicans with crap grades for Clinton. Frankly...that's kind of sad that people can't see beyond their personal political prejudices, but such is life in a 2-party country, I suppose.

Irish

[HDPM]

"are not constitutionally protected to the degree gun ownership is
Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to own a gun.
The "right to bear arms" so commonly cited by gun activists was taken directly
from British common law, and refers to the right to carry a sword. It has
absolutely nothing to do with guns. I'm not a big fan of adapting one's reading
of the constitution to incorporate changes in meaning that couldn't possibly
have been contemplated then. (Otherwise, I'm interested in asserting my right
to carry around a bazooka when I have to be away from my tank.)"


Do you think the Revolutionary War was fought with swords? Come on. Read some Volokh articles cited in the link I provided above. He has spent years showing what the 2d Amendment means. Your interpretation is not accurate. There is some dispute how far the Amendment goes. I think a reasonable argument could be made that the Amendment does not contemplate ownership of WMD's. But small arms like bazookas clearly fall in its protections. And check the laws, you might be surprised what you can own if you follow certain steps and don't live in a liberal state. I have said before that the correct interpretation of the 2d Amd is a double edged sword. If people really understood it, it would probably be repealed. The Supreme Court will probably hear a case on the meaning of the Amd. within a couple of years. I imagine they will decide that the 2d Amd is an individual right but that various regulations of that right are proper. They may find incorrectly that some regulations on military small arms are OK in order to save the Amendment. But the attitude that existed among the Founding Fathers was completely different from the attitude among most Americans today with their excessive and irrational concerns about "public safety." The men who fought the Revolutionary War were not soccer mommies or nanny statists.

[brad]

'Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to own a gun.'

thats very easy irishhand, the 9th and 10th amendments.

i dont think you realize that the government does not 'grant' or 'give' us any rights. (bill of rights merely enumerates certain innate rights of free men, etc.)

if you are an immigrant from a communist country or something you may never understand this.

[Adnirol]

Now this is absolutely hilarious!!! IrishHand said"constitution it says you have the right to own a gun. The "right to bear arms" so commonly cited by gun activists was taken directly from British common law, and refers to the right to carry a sword....". Duh!! I do believe that our founding fathers knew the difference between a sword and a gun so your statement to the contrary is laughable. I have heard many people trying to explain away our rights as individuals to bear arms but this one truly takes the cake!!

As for the Clinton rankings do you think maybe just maybe it was because he was a poor role model, a govern by the polls president with no moral integrity whatsoever?

Adnirol

[Clarkmeister]

Re: Guns - Requiring a license isn't an infringement on the right to bear arms. Heck, if we wrote the constitution today the right to own a badass car would be the first article in the bill of rights. Own all the guns you want, I don't care what types of weapons they are. But at least be licensed.

Re: Clinton's morality. I would argue (and have argued above) that Reagan was a much worse person than Clinton. Both are pretty much morally bankrupt as far as I am concerned, but Reagan's crimes were dramatically more serious. He should have done jail time along with the others.

[brad]

look up what a license is.

[andyfox]

Kind of an interesting thing: sometimes bright people (Johnson) make lousy presidents. Sometimes bright and morally upright people (Carter) make lousy presidents. And sometimes ignorant idiots (Reagan) end up doing better than people with brains. Bush II may actually be Reagan II.

[brad]

morally upright people (Carter)

now thats funny

[andyfox]

I fail to see the humor.

[sourwhiskystrait]

Just the opposite of the nation's current fortune....

[brad]

US support of indonesia against east timor was during his watch, wasnt it? just to name one thing.

[Bill Murphy]

..Eleanor Mondale accidentally sticking her head out of the Air Force One bedroom, then jerking it back quick when she saw the camera; Slick instantly putting on a "sad face" when he spots the cameras as he's walking out of the church after Ron Brown's funeral; Slick tearing up his knee chasing one of Greg Norman's maids down a flight of stairs while drunk; the murders of Vince Foster and all the people investigating Whitewater; "Come in here, dear girl, have a cigar, you're gonna go far..."; etc, etc... /forums/images/icons/wink.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[The-Baron]

What effect would licensure of firearms have on their use by criminals?

[The-Baron]

Kennedy- 6.5 (he had a pair of BIG brass ones and was likely
more liberal with the Presidential cigars than
Clinton ever hoped to be... but he did bluff out
the Soviet Union even after the Bay of Pigs)

Johnson- 3 (For somebody as fundamentally intelligent, he
was absolutely incompetent as Commander in
Chief and that's what the US needed at the time)

Nixon- 7.5 (Stupidly held out during Watergate rather than
letting his flunkies take the hit. Did manage to
turn Kissenger loose on the Vietnamese)

Ford-- 5 (Just didn't do a lot. Didn't have the time to fix the
PR problems of the Nixon whitehouse and didn't
have the charisma to get elected on his own.)

Carter- 5 (Bad calls in supporting existing governments in
Malaysia and Indonesia. Incredibly intelligent, not
charismatic enough to be a good president.)

Reagan- 8.0 (Had the Soviet Union scared enough that they
actually increased the proportion of their
GNP spent on defense during the first 4
years with Reagan. Seriously bad calls on
SDI and Iran/Contra. Doesn't get a lower
score because his international policies
helped the US economy domestically.)

Bush(Rel. 1.0)- 5 (Good call with Iraq/Kuwait, no clear
domestic policy. He "should" have been
able to ride the Gulf War to a second
term but let his handlers run the show
in a way that made him look inept.)

Clinton- 4.5 (Domestic policy seemed to be based on
giving goodies to democrat party donors.
Essentially castrated the military. Didn't
leave Mogadishu in a smoking ruin after
the US forces got whupped on. Your
military is a binary concept. If you use them
you let them do the job until it's finished. Or
don't use them at all. Did manage to get
impeached which moves his grade up a bit
for sheer entertainment value.)

Bush(Rel. 2.0)- 6.5 (Will depend on what he does with the
domestic policies now that the war
on terrorism isn't fashionable with the
US voters.)

As always, YMMV.