The Clinton Legacy

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What is it? When some pro-Clinton folks in my office were discussing this recently they asked me what I thought his legacy would be - I tried to think of something positive to say to ameliorate them but I came up empty (I made a weak joke about internet boom instead). Policy-wise, I couldn't think of anything a liberal would be proud of him passing: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, welfare "reform", the gays in the military thing, the failed healthcare initiative, etc.

Clinton defenders unite.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

So you're looking for a list of positive liberal (or even "progressive") achievements to rattle off or what?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

Fiscal responsibility

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

August 20, 1996 - Minimum wage Increase Act

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

haha that is pretty weak tho

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

this thread is going to rule harder than jon's bbcode one when gabbneb and morbius show up

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

Family and Medical Leave Act

― Sara R-C, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

So you're looking for a list of positive liberal (or even "progressive") achievements to rattle off or what?

well, kinda- although a simple list of legislative achievements is what I'm really after, particularly legislation that has far-reaching or lasting implications. Whether or not liberals or progressives or whatever approve of them is a separate matter.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

For a second I thought the thread was titled "The Reagan Legacy."

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

Well for the mainstream of the country I don't think Clinton's remembered legacy will be about legislation and policy any more than, say, Reagan's is. For people without strong political dogmatism in either direction, it'll be a matter of how they felt during those years, and how they felt the country was doing, and so yeah: very strong economy leading to practically miraculous budget surplus. Which is appropriate, I think, because Clinton's triangulations turned him into a fairly ideal mainstream president -- we're not going to be able to dig up that much of a legacy for progressives to get excited over, but during a decade where Americans were safe and wealthy enough to get really heated up over domestic issues, he steered a course that your average middle-of-the-road suburban family could probably approve of as generally sensible and well-intentioned.

I think as time goes on people will also develop some vague respect for the Clinton attempt to do something about the health care system, years before it began to weigh on the public as a massive priority -- even people who didn't agree with or don't even remember the details may grudgingly appreciate the effort.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

These are the Clinton Legacy buzzwords that come to my mind:

peace
prosperity
budget surplus
diplomacy
blowjob
persecution

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

welfare reform

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

woolite

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

Except for a few die-hards on the left, welfare reform is pretty widely regarded as a success, isn't it?

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:22 (nineteen years ago)

during a decade where Americans were safe and wealthy enough to get really heated up over domestic issues, he steered a course that your average middle-of-the-road suburban family could probably approve of as generally sensible and well-intentioned.

So will he be remembered as a Benjamin Harrison or Coolidge?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:24 (nineteen years ago)

saxophone

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

Hmm, not sure why that didn't work.

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

V Chip! blue dress! "The era of big government is over"! That hand gesture with his thumb! Dee Dee Myers! Socks the cat!

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

al gore's need (?) to distance himself from clinton conceivably cost him 26,000 votes in AR or 41,000 votes in TN, either of which would have given him the election. you can't talk about clinton's legacy without talking about bush.

― dan, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

That hand gesture with his thumb!

ah yes, the Clinton point. I spent a little too much time deconstructing the psych/body language behind that one.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

Well actually pointing is rude. The Clinton "pushing the elevator call button" gesture had the force of a point but the feel of a friendly, non-aggressive thumbs-up.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

oh yeah, let's not forget the centrist-pandering SISTA SOULJA SMACKDOWN

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

you can't talk about clinton's legacy without talking about bush.

Yep: like you can't talk about Reagan's legacy without mentioning Clinton. Just as Reagan's anti-pinko cred protected him against accusations of softness when negotiating with the Soviets, Bill could cheerfully sign NAFTA, "end welfare we know it" and sign anti-terror legislation.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:43 (nineteen years ago)

answer

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

assault weapons ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

See, starts high with "remember how we made so much money that the government actually SAVED some? Right? Guys? We offered you a LOCKBOX? Remember you made fun of the LOCKBOX? Where's your LOCKBOX now, bitches???"

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

haha

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

The source is a wonder of objectivity, gabbs.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

Except for a few die-hards on the left, welfare reform is pretty widely regarded as a success, isn't it?

Insofar as most people get off on the idea of punishing the poor, yes.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

you got another one?

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

brady bill

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

Punishing the poor by trapping them in a cycle of dependence and distorted incentives?

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

TRY-ANGER-LATION

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

vetoed partial birth abortion ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, I'm guessing Gab's offering that up less as an objective summary and more as, I dunno, the case Clinton might make for what he accomplished, something that's a pretty relevant starting point for a thread line this.

Seriously, though, I'd pay money to see Gore JUST ONCE get all "told you so" about the lockbox. Everyone made fun of the dork who wanted to save the money.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

he said i told you so in the snl skit

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

i think clinton was a pretty shitty president btw - the 3 things i named are the best i got

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

Punishing the poor by ~~trapping them in a cycle of dependence and distorted incentives~~depriving them of a basic social safety net without offering a legitimate chance at a living wage through job training or public works or civil service or...?

(There's a NAFTA joke that could be made there as well.)

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

I don't read the Atlantic and don't know who Jack Beatty is: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411u/pp2004-11-23

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

The Clinton "pushing the elevator call button" gesture had the force of a point but the feel of a friendly, non-aggressive thumbs-up

why are you always so OTM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

He didn't seek U.N. approval to bomb Kosovo? As Nixon would say, "Whammo!"

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪ on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:51 PM (1 minute ago)

good friday agreement??

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

Intervention in the Balkans was basically just, even if it didn't exactly work as well as hoped and we should all have some moral qualms with the 'shock and awe' approach to military intervention.

Not much good you can say elsewhere.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

lifted trade embargo on vietnam

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

found new uses for a good Cuban

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

nuclear weapons testing ban

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:56 (nineteen years ago)

never sold weapons to Saddam Hussein

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

bombed that aspirin factory

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

this thread would be a lot easier if you could just make his legacy 'the lesser evil.'

Didn't aid Osama at any point.
Had fewer members of his administration face federal charges than either Reagan or Bush II.
Didn't nominate Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

He was great in Apocalypse Now (sorry, that was the TV-Clinton).

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

Rwanda.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

He did pardon Rostenkowski, didn't he?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

gave it the old college try in Somalia and Haiti

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

Intervention in the Balkans was basically just, even if it didn't exactly work as well as hoped and we should all have some moral qualms with the 'shock and awe' approach to military intervention.

Wasn't it too little too late!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

looks a helluva lot better than Al Gore these days

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

Punishing the poor by trapping them in a cycle of dependence and distorted incentivesdepriving them of a basic social safety net without offering a legitimate chance at a living wage through job training or public works or civil service or...?

There's a very good, long article by a Harvard professor of social policy that examines whether welfare reform was a net positive or not for former recipients of AFDC (the old pre-Clinton welfare). He concludes that while there is clearly a long way left to go, welfare reform was a net positive step. It's important to note that the work requirements that were included in Clinton's welfare reform were accompanied by measures that made it easier for low-income workers, especially single mothers, to make ends meet - ie., big increases in the earned income tax credit and subsidies for child care.

What Happened to Welfare?

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

1993 - appointed joycelyn elders as surgeon general (some stuff may have happened after this, i dont remember)

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

like, Elders was forced to resign for suggesting education about masturbation? OH THE COURAGE

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

Is there even anything good to say about his foreign policy?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/rabin_arafat_clinton.gif

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

Among other things, Clinton helped the Baltic states quite a bit in getting the fuKKKing soviet troops out. The chap!

― t**t, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

He's also responsible for the windiest SOTU's of the last 30 years.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

gee golly dr morbius i didnt know all about that!! boy is my face red

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

That loquacious bastard, how dare he.

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

o.nate, you seem to be reading an entirely different review than I.

Lead paragraph of the last section, repeating the same thing as previous sections: "After spending eight years observing the effects of welfare reform, DeParle concludes that it moved a good many single mothers off the welfare rolls but that nearly all are still struggling to live on meager incomes. Every study I have seen supports that view."

Welfare reform was very successful at taking people 'off the dole' and into low-paying, menial work without any apparent benefit in social mobility or comfort.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:13 (nineteen years ago)

a w, I have no idea what you know all about & perhaps others don't know

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

Apparently you didn't sit through them, elmo. They were like Dr. Zhivago long, without Julie Christie.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:15 (nineteen years ago)

Lead paragraph of the last section, repeating the same thing as previous sections: "After spending eight years observing the effects of welfare reform, DeParle concludes that it moved a good many single mothers off the welfare rolls but that nearly all are still struggling to live on meager incomes. Every study I have seen supports that view

Newsflash for you: they were also "struggling to live on meager incomes" while they were ON welfare. You have to measure progress from the place you started from, not from the distance from your perceived ideal utopia. Just to be clear on the author's overall conclusion:

"Clinton vetoed several Republican bills as too harsh, but as the 1996 election approached he decided that the third Republican bill was better than no bill at all. At the time, I thought he should have vetoed it. For reasons I mention below, I now think he made the right decision. "

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:16 (nineteen years ago)

Newsflash for you: they were also "struggling to live on meager incomes" while they were ON welfare.

So what was the benefit, then?

If weflare was less than effectual, its destruction was not the only option. This is the same logic that decides that a flat tax is the only answer to cutting out loopholes in the tax code.

Clinton chose to make a play for middle-class votes by screwing the poor, setting the stage for the most recent GOP Congress to do much, much worse.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

Made it much easier to illustrate lack of differences between the 2 parties.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't SOTU addresses supposed to be comprehensive? Just saying, I'd take 3 hours of Clintonian truth-lawyering than short, left-field exhortations about SWITCHGRASS.

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

So what was the benefit, then?

I invite you to read the whole article.

― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

from the review:

DeParle proposes several reforms to improve single mothers' lives. He would expand Medicaid, raise the minimum wage, use housing subsidies to move poor families to better neighborhoods, offer better job training, and make sure that every school has an after-school program for children of working mothers. These proposals are familiar and, except for better job training, most states know how to carry them out. The obstacles are political, not technical. As DeParle says, "It's hard to picture a radically new politics of poverty when politics remains so dominated by money and the poor so lacking in power." But welfare reform has at least reduced popular opposition to such changes. Most Americans seem to share Clinton's view that "those who work shouldn't be poor," and they are now more likely to see single mothers as working mothers.

Homeslice doesn't live in a state dominated by conservatives (whether GOP or Democrat). Nor does he offer me a shred of evidence that reform made it easier to initiate any of those proposals. And if it is easier: then why haven't they been put into place?

It's been a decade: logically, if reform had this magical benefit, we should be seeing it. But as the book he's reviewing and his own review states, we haven't.

Nonetheless, demands that all able-bodied poor women should work full-time are often unrealistic, as well as punitive in their effects. With four children to support, Angie had to work more than forty hours a week to keep her family going.[15] Forcing unmarried mothers with four children to spend that much time at work can only lead to physical and emotional exhaustion, child neglect, and greater numbers of adolescents in trouble.

Ah, yes, there's that benefit to forcing people off welfare and into multiple jobs for the same income.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

i would like to hear a 3 hour sotu about human/animal hybrids

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

AmeriCorps

― akm, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

I'm going to limit this to shit that he can be given most of the credit for

1. Although I didn't like the way he did it, he did get the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military

2. EITC

3. Charter Schools initiative

4. He didn't back away from welfare reform when there was a lot of pressure to do so. Same with NAFTA.

5. His political personality engaged a lot of young people

6. Advanced peace in the Middle East, sort of

7. China and the WTO

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

His political personality engaged a lot of young people

Dear Billy Blythe,

Thanks for gabbneb.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:33 (nineteen years ago)

"slightly less liberal than Nixon" then? (kidding)

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

I FORGET, DID CLINTON SAY HE WORE BOXERS OR BRIEFS?

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

did you really vote for ron paul, you dick

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

yeah morbs i'm still boggling that you just outed yourself as a libertarian voter after 8 years of reagan!! and you lecture the rest of us, christ

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

voting for a libertarian when I knew GHWB was gonna stomp Dukakichusetts is not the same as being "a libertarian voter"

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

Morbius, I wore a Mondale/Ferraro button in '84. If you want to know where I came from, you can start there.

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:39 (nineteen years ago)

but... you voted in new york, i assume?

voting for a libertarian is the same as being a libertarian voter, mr. clinton

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:39 (nineteen years ago)

buchanan in 96!!!

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

Dukakichusetts

stop this nonsense right now

― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

it depends on what the meaning of 'is a libertarian voter' is

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

'libertarian voter' implies someone who agrees with Libertarian Party bullshit

Some people routinely vote Libertarian because they're the largest (or the only) third party on the ballot.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:43 (nineteen years ago)

I voted for Bill Bradley over Gore in 2000 NY primary, but that doesn't mean I'm a Central American death-squad fan.

Back to topic, seeya-bye

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:44 (nineteen years ago)

Dukakichusetts

ROFLZ

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:46 (nineteen years ago)

Some people routinely vote Libertarian because they're the largest (or the only) third party on the ballot.

ackbar.jpg

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:46 (nineteen years ago)

hanging chads amirite

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:48 (nineteen years ago)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c47/DecaturKingfish/ackbar.jpg?

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:48 (nineteen years ago)

After morbs voted for that wingnut, I'll bet he waggled his eyebrows, chewed his cigar and goosed Margaret Dumont.

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

hahahahaha

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

see i don't understand either one of you, really

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

oh of course ethan gets it, dammit

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

I'd forgotten how funny "Central American Death Squad" sounds.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

oh grouchopaws

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:52 (nineteen years ago)

Je suis marxiste tendance Groucho.

(I don't even remember who I voted for for prez in 2004. Some socialist.)

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

(I don't even remember who I voted for for prez in 2004. Some socialist.)

Dr Morbius on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:54 PM (39 seconds ago)

http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-2/2Stalin.GIF

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

Walt Brown? He didn't even get on the 'counted write-ins' section here.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

thread is a riot

― deej, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

Morbius, I wore a Mondale/Ferraro button in '84. If you want to know where I came from, you can start there.

gabbneb on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:39 PM

hey, only major-party prez candidate I ever voted for. Even after Fritz squawked "NO, I wouldn't share SDI technology with the Soviets!" in the debate. The dick.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

Why not just sleep late on election day? Same outcome, more energy for fuming over the night's results.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

hay guyz morbz is right our useless two party system has failed to solve all the pressing issues that the libertarian party has

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.saulmoran.com/strawman.jpg

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/WOO4.jpg
Tell Hot Lips and the rest of the Coen Bros fanclub to quit jerking it over Billy Blythe and vote for a real alternative like LaRouche!

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

"Why not just sleep late on election day?"

Yeah fuck voting for Senators or bond issues or city councillors.

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

The Libetarian Party::College = Pedophiles::Grooming

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:57 (nineteen years ago)

to catch a free market predator

― and what, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:59 (nineteen years ago)

There are way more third-party options for senators and municipal posts than the presidency, dude!

I would say you have me on "bond issues," with their rigid yes/no heirarchy forcing people into categories, but I'm sure there are independents out there who write in "yes BUT only if the following conditions are met."

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:00 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously, all the libertarian douche-bros in college are all republicans by the time they're 30.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:01 (nineteen years ago)

The Libetarian Party::College = Pedophiles::Grooming

The Libertarian Party as College equals Pedophiles as Grooming???

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:01 (nineteen years ago)

"There are way more third-party options for senators and municipal posts than the presidency, dude!"

Yeah well you ain't going to get to vote for them by sleeping late on election day (unless you mailed an absentee ballot, but nevermind!)

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

The Libertarian Party is to College equals Pedophiles are to Grooming

or some shit.. the miller analogies test is SHIT

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

hey guys.... THE FRANK MILLER ANALOGY TEST

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

wait, are we asking for more of morbius' white-hot iconoclasm...on fiddly local shit like bonds?? yeah, bring that right on

― gff, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

I think Alex missed the thrust of my lame joke, but it was a fairly lame joke, so we can probably let it drift off.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

THIS IS THE CLINTON LEGACY: INTERNECINE PARTY SQUABBLING.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:14 (nineteen years ago)

Bill Clinton gave us Steak and Blowjob Day, for that we should be thankful.

― milo z, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

Alfred let me register Morbs's disgust for him: his whole point is that he's NOT OF THAT PARTY, etc.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

If it's any consolation, I dropped my party affiliation shortly after Bush's inauguration.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:23 (nineteen years ago)

tombot=prophet

― latebloomer, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

*whoops, my Democratic affiliation

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:33 (nineteen years ago)

Clinton entered office as a weak president, following three terms of Reagan-Bush, Bush-Quayle, and an election where he got about 43% of the popular vote (remember Ross Perot got about 11%). He tried to run herd on a Democratic Congress to pass health care reform, but failed miserably, because the compromise he and Hillary brokered was pulled in more directions than saltwater taffy and no one really like the taste of it.

After that, he was essentially a caretaker in office. Once he gave up on the big issues, he proved to be a very deft operator on the small stuff and kept Gringrich tied in knots, even as the Republicans raked in more money than Croesus. After Congress went over, he was the bulwark of the Dems, instead of the footrest for Democtratic committee chairpersons. But accomplishments? Mainly he won a whole series of little cat-and-mouse games over diddly-squat, while the country was increasingly run by and for plutocrats.

Compared to what happened the moment the plutocratic candidate took over, Clinton looks mighty good for making the rich wear a condom while they screwed the poor and middle class. IMO.

― Aimless, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:17 (nineteen years ago)

that's pretty otm. except a lot of what he did was done in the budget and the tax code and is hard to attack or defend by saying he passed X or held the line at Y.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:38 (nineteen years ago)

one thing that clinton did -- he made the democratic party stop paying attention to crabby malcontents like morbius. that's good b/c now they're someone else's problem. it's bad b/c it gave us ralph nader's 2000 campaign.

― Eisbaer, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:12 (nineteen years ago)

...and the 94 republican revolution and subsequent GWB presidency.

― walterkranz, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:15 (nineteen years ago)

better the Democratic Party should listen to crabby malcontents like Joe Lieberman than Morbs, eh?

― milo z, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:34 (nineteen years ago)

i have no love for lieberman (remember: i'm the dude who started the "defend the indefensible" thread for that cocksucker). i'd gladly through his ass to the sharks.

― Eisbaer, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:38 (nineteen years ago)

i'd gladly through his ass

Don't ask, don't tell.

― walterkranz, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:42 (nineteen years ago)

Fiscal responsibility

Uh-huh, selling the US to China was a truly responsible move.

That and 'peace' under Clinton was only peace for the US. As in, the violence was being perpetuated elsewhere, nowhere near US waters, and didn't involve many US military personnel. Sort of like right now minus that last part, but not as hopelessly terrible and rage-inducing.

― the table is the table, Thursday, 15 March 2007 02:06 (nineteen years ago)

he made the democratic party stop paying attention to crabby malcontents like morbius. that's good b/c now they're someone else's problem.

The Democratic party or crabby malcontents? Besides, hooray for crabby malcontents!

Uh-huh, selling the US to China was a truly responsible move.

To be fair, Nixon started this. One of the bits of advice Dick gave Bill in the months before he died -- besides urging him to embrace Russian "democracy" -- was not to lose sight of the Chinese.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 02:09 (nineteen years ago)

Well, of course Nixon started it, but Clinton aided the effort to tie the dollar to yuan, which wasn't really the best move. Especially considering what it's a) done to the US economy, and b) helped wreak on China, environmentally and socially.

― the table is the table, Thursday, 15 March 2007 03:13 (nineteen years ago)

if the lewinsky affair had happened now, would Bill be doing the "rehab" option (the "Newsom")

― gershy, Thursday, 15 March 2007 03:19 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.sexualrecovery.com/resources/selftests/gsast.php

― gershy, Thursday, 15 March 2007 03:21 (nineteen years ago)

Uh-huh, selling the US to China was a truly responsible move.

I agree. But when the CEOs of 95% of Fortune 500 companies are drooling over what they see as a massive, instant profit-bonanza and wildly beating the big bass drum for it in every business-shill tv program, newspaper and magazine, then they usually walk away with what they want. Clinton was not the kind of guy to throw himself under the wheels of that train.

― Aimless, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

it's bad b/c it gave us ralph nader's 2000 campaign.

ie, payback is a motherfucker.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

says a guy who voted for ron paul

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, that vote was a message vote, the same message I'm sending to you (both syllables).

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

(also you make literally nofuckingsense)

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

broken records rarely do

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

so if a protest vote carries no actual effect, it's better?

― gff, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

i protest voted in your most huggable ilxers poll because you listed curt1s twice

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

i don't understand why protest voters seem to think they have any statistical relevance to campaign research number crunchers -- or anyone! -- at all. YOU ARE AN ANOMOLY. You are like the green '0' & '00' on the roulette wheel, the only time anyone cares about your protest vote is when you make EVERYONE LOSE.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

wtf his vote wasn't going to matter anyway so he voted for someone else as a matter of conscience, what is so hard to understand

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

elmo, we're waiting for YOU to make our protest matter. JOIN US!

Anyway, perhaps WJC's legacy, as suggested by Wm Greider in this week's nation, will partly be letting his egomania torpedo La Rodham's campaign?

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

i dont understand why youd vote for a racist piece of shit like ron paul as a protest vote when you could just write in yourself or spielberg or whatever the fuck else

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

heres some quotes from the guy that morbz went for 'as a matter of conscience':

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

that's The Nation

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

The protest voters I know personally (IRL) seem to have an inflated sense of civic duty, as if those of us who voted for one of the two major parties somehow don't take our electoral participation seriously enough. Is a strategic vote less legitimate than a 'sincere' one? I don't think so.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

Well, for starters, if enough people didn't vote for the two parties we might have a real revolution in politics. This might, of course, disappoint gabbneb.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

elmo, it depends what a lifetime of 'strategic' votes gets you. I think it gets you one party with two right wings.

how many of those Paul quotes are from 1988 or earlier? cuz I certainly hadn't seen em then, and obv wdn't vote for somebody I knew made them.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

elmo, it depends what a lifetime of 'strategic' votes gets you. I think it gets you one party with two right wings.

sorry morbz anything you say now is filtered thru being said by a guy who VOTED FOR RON PAUL

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

what sort of 'revolution' do you imagine that would be alfred?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:13 (nineteen years ago)

Taking the piss out of Ron Paul seems pretty boring. Get a room.

― Aimless, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

our political parties have cracked up and reconfigured themselves before, nothing is set in stone (any whigs in the house?) if a certain set of national issues come up that reconfigure the right/left landscape beyond what the dem/gop setup can handle, something else will happen.

― gff, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

so andtwat, Paul's explanation is some pimply-faced aide wrote the shit you posted. Whatever.

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies? As opposed to biting yr lower lip and just saying stuff about Hope.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

what sort of 'revolution' do you imagine that would be alfred?

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems; (b) the party system isn't truly representative.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

my point earlier was: protest votes either do two things: a) nothing, or b) harm the chances of a candidate that is closer (but not close enough, apparently) to your position, bringing about a worse outcome than the one you were protesting. neither one seems like a really laudable end effect to be shooting for, "conscience" or not.

unless we see a complete reconstruction of our system along parliamentary lines with coalition governments, things will fall into binaries.

― gff, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies? As opposed to biting yr lower lip and just saying stuff about Hope.

i thought maybe we'd want to get shit done instead of being right and losing all the time

― deej, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

'getting shit done' : NAFTA, DOMA, abolishing AFDC, providing a political model for Dubya

The political timidity of good smart people in the post-Reagan generation = suckage

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems

Thing is, this is patently untrue, and the fact that you feel that way does not actually make it a universal opinion.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

What did relativism ever do for me?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

Which part is untrue, nabisco? If you disagree, the answers upthread regarding Bill's "legacy" should help.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

But let's return to this thread's subject, shall we?

2007-03-14) — Former President Bill Clinton today added his voice to the chorus calling for Gen. Peter Pace to apologize for remarks in a recent interview in which he branded some kinds of behavior as “immoral“, and said the military should not condone immorality of any kind.

In a newspaper interview, Gen. Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned adultery and homosexual behavior as examples of immorality.

President Clinton, who served as Commander in Chief for two tours of duty, instituted the military policy called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ which officially allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they lie about their behavior and don’t get caught in the act.

“Gen. Pace’s antiquated ideas could have a chilling effect on military recruiting,” said Mr. Clinton. “In addition, there’s a real risk that the general has hurt the feelings of many who love this country and are willing to fight for our freedom to have intimate relations without so-called moral boundaries.”

Mr. Clinton noted that if the nation had Gen. Pace’s attitude toward adultery just a few years ago, “we would have lost the valiant service of one of history’s greatest commanders in chief.”

“The military desperately needs brave men and women with the character, integrity and dignity that their colleagues can count on in times of war,” said Mr. Clinton, “But Gen. Pace essentially hung out a sign that says, ‘adulterers, homosexuals and liars need not apply.’”

He urged the general to “count the cost of his narrow views."

Pots, kettles, etc.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

I'd also note that most of the things people say they're looking to accomplish by opting for candidates who get less than 1% of the vote -- "revolution," "sending a message," "reshaping the party," etc. -- are things that are traditionally accomplished by activism, agitation, outreach, or party involvement, and traditionally not accomplished at all -- usually even self-defeated! -- via 1% electoral politics.

And yet the rhetoric and personality types that seem to go with 1% electoral politics actually seem like the last ones that would bother with things like activism, agitation, outreach, or party involvement, because all of those things would call for some level of making common cause with significant groups of other people -- i.e., the definition of political action and the very thing they seem largely resistant to.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe a 'revolution' with actual progressive policies?

given that about half the voting public votes against progressive policies, i see no basis for this fantasy.

A realization by current party heads that (a) their constituents are fucking upset and aware of the lack of real difference between GOP and Dems; (b) the party system isn't truly representative

if enough people thought there wasn't any real difference between the parties (given that 2/3 of the voting public identifies with one, i don't think this is close to true) or that they would have more power banding together with smaller, more like-minded groups (possibly an endless cycle in such a large and various society), the parties would already be gone.

if a third party develops in this country, i think it will make our politics more consensus-oriented rather than more diverse, but that this is unlikely to last long. if things really broke up parliamentary-style, i think that would have to happen with some sort of formal defederalization. you really think that's going to happen?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

Alfred that Clinton-Pace thing is a fake, right...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

The voting public votes against progressive policies because one side says progressivism = socialism while the other is so inarticulate it can't dispel the myths.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/condi_wants_clinton_to_save_her_big.jpg

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

cf. "socialized medicine"

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

Alfred that Clinton story is a joke, you dickbag.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

I know it is!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

given that about half the voting public votes against progressive policies

I know that's your mantra, but the key is to get the nonvoting 'pro-progressives' voting.

Actually nabisco's point about "1% electoral personalities" (which I don't entirely agree with -- there were a lot of activist types in Nader's 2000 camp) is part of why I was disappointed (like Camille Paglia) by the '00 Green campaign -- didn't do enough to reach out beyond the choir.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:51 (nineteen years ago)

The voting public votes against progressive policies because one side says progressivism = socialism while the other is so inarticulate it can't dispel the myths.

So we should vote for articulate people-connectors like Nader, who's done so much to reassure the American mainstream that progressive politics are non-socialistic and inspiring.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

the key is to get the nonvoting 'pro-progressives' voting

1. Bigfoot
2. Loch Ness Monster
3. Ghosts
4. Giant revolutionary American electoral bloc of non-voting progressives who are upset by lack of differentiation between major parties

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't mentioned Nader once.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

man, so not OTM.

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

also, I saw Bigfoot at Nader's Madison Square Garden rally in 2000.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

Very real.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

Man or Woman on the Street: "Politicians? Fuck em all." A myth?

THIS IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

Men and women on the street say the same thing about journalists and lawyers. Meanwhile, many of them find Fox News refreshing, enjoy filing frivolous lawsuits, and don't exactly advocate a specific vision of ABA code reform that just happens to match up with my personal one. "Fuck politicians" is not the same thing as a progressive electorate, for god's sake.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

who enjoys filing a frivolous lawsuit? or maybe you're kidding.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

Note also that the person currently most successful at circumventing "fuck politicians" cynicism = not a progressive third-party canditate but a major-party right-winger by the name of McCain.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:13 (nineteen years ago)

you seriously think McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional non-voting "fuck em all" types?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:15 (nineteen years ago)

You mean Giulani.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:15 (nineteen years ago)

no, he means mccain

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

you seriously think McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional non-voting "fuck em all" types?

Personal experience says yes.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

McCain's pulling in a lot of traditional ~~non~~-voting "fuck em all" types

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

I think Giuliani's too soon to call, really -- the rest of America doesn't know much about him yet beyond "dude was totally reassuring after 9/11."

Shakey, I didn't say anything about non-voters, though if you counted young people in 2000 then they might come into the picture -- my point is that over the last decade McCain seems to have been more successful than anyone at convincing Americans that he's somehow above the things people are politician-cynical about, to the extent that even liberals have had high opinions of him up until they catch a closer look at his actual positions. And yeah, that's immensely electorally valuable for him, and it seems like the main thing that's kept him from making much headway with it in 2000 was winding up as the party's misfit stepchild in terms of support, funding, etc.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't McCain's polling numbers in the toilet though?

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

Do you think Giuliani's family values problems will be notable or has the populace stopped caring in the post-Clinton era.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway point being why in the world, in America, would anyone assume people's cynicism about politics somehow translates to progressive inclinations????? It's such a bizarre wishful-thinking assumption: people's cynicism tends to translate to the exact same choices as people's optimism.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

sure nabisco, I wasn't *equating* the two. "fuck politicians" isn't entirely cynicism, it's a reaction to the all-time high of professional cynicism in pols.

Post-Watergate I can't think of a single national pol who hasn't proved to be the end-product of focus groups; Clinton and his V-Chip/Dick Morris reelection campaign was the most obvious example that cynicism was more bipartisan than ever.

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

(btw, some of these points are dealt with pointedly -- on both sides -- in that new Nader documentary)

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't McCain's polling numbers in the toilet though?

he is being polled among republicans, and he's usually/often second, which is partly explainable by having a slightly lower name id than giuliani. his real support is among independents.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cb_haiti_bill_clinton

― "the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 03:22 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.