Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

what legislation did he pass? He cared more about his next blowjob than the economy or national security.

Oh horseshidt. Even while getting hummed, he was working.

And at least he had some brains. This pathetic moron now holding the office is an embarrassment he is so stupid.

no, not horseshit. Tell me, what significant legislation did Clinton pass?
He ordered the bombing of Belgrade to pull attention away from his scandal w/ Lewinsky. He needed something to distract the public. Yeah, Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but who would you rather have, Kerry?

You can't go there BWShooter. A lot of significant legislation was passed during the Clinton administration. Don't forget he had a Republican controlled Congress for most of it. If the GOP had had a solid majority in the Senate the whole way, we would have done a whole lot better. The thing is Clinton had no convictions. Whatever the polls said was the politically expedient thing to do, he was for. Therefore he didn't throw up a lot of roadblocks to get things done and a lot of good things were done. Fortunately we didn't have to go to war under Clinton. That would have been scary.

Kerry, on the other hand, is about as far left and as socialist as they come and he flipflops much more often than Clinton did. I can't seem him being anywhere near as accommodating as Clinton was. And considering his view of the military, as Commander in Chief he would be far more scary.
Let's hope we don't have to find out.

thank you for proving my point.

A better question--and perfect for its own discussion--would be:

For which specific Clinton administration achievements do you give personal credit to Bill Clinton?

Then you could explore where Clinton stood on those specific examples and determine whether he, the Republican-controlled legislature, or both really deserved credit for those achievements.

(Just as an example: Clinton is often credited today for the success of welfare reform which he opposed and twice vetoed before finally signing. Several other of his key "successes" as president are taken directly from the Republican's "Contract With America", which he and other Democrats lampooned and fought against.)

And in so doing saved a whole people from mass deportation.


Yes. Even Kerry.


Wikipedia has this:

- [Clinton signed] the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required large employers to allow their employees to take unpaid leave because of a family or medical emergency.

and this:

Major legislation signed

- Creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program
- 1994 Crime Bill Expansion - as part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses
- On March 14, 1996 he authorized a $100 million anti-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.
- Brady Bill
- Telecom bill, which eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.
- Communications Decency Act
- Welfare reform
- NAFTA
- Minimum wage increase
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states the power to refuse to recognize gay marriages granted in other states, among other things

Nimh, now on that list of bills, please mark the ones that Clinton introduced

He signed them, but almost all are GOP initiatives. I give him credit for signing them though. Like I said, he didn't throw up many roadblocks so a lot of stuff did get done.

Whoops hit button twice. Sorry.
How do you delete one of these things anyway?

nimh - Good list, but what it doesn't tell us is which of those were things which got implemented in spite of Clinton, and which were things he actually supported. For that you need to dig deeper. I don't get to take credit for things that happened despite my opposition; only for things that happened because I promoted them and worked to make them happen.

Is it just me, or do most threads about problems with the current administration end up raising the issue of Clinton's shortcomings, as though one has something to do with the other?

As fun as it may be to bash Clinton (and instructive, since it seems to imply that Bush bashing -the original question- must be acceptable in principle) it seems to constitute a fairly lame defense of the incumbent.

During the Clinton years, Democrats were bashing Reagan, so the only thing that seems certain about this trend is that it is bipartisan.

I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that I generally raise the issue of the Clinton administration or Clinton himself to disprove the notion that a specific complaint about Bush is based on some deeply held standard rather than political expediency. If a person complains about Bush going into Iraq, and their complaint is that he did so without UN approval, it seems valid to me to question whether that person complained when Bush went into Bosnia without so much as mentioning his plans to the UN. This isn't "Clinton bashing", it's attempting to get Bush-haters to do a reality check and acknowledge their bias. Invariably the reality is that they don't care what Clinton did or did not do, because he was their man. Conversely they are troubled by every action or inaction of Bush because he is not. There is no more rational thought involved in their opinions than that.

So, what does that say about those of us who had almost as many disagreements with Clinton's policies as well? Or does that not fit into your nice little box?

To call Clinton names in retaliation for the names Bush gets called is not just childish; it blows far wide of the mark. Clinton did more to move Republican ideas ahead than the Republican presidents did. The Republicans were just too partisan to thank him for it. Which is why I did not vote for Clinton. Therefore, to call Clinton names is nothing more than an act of self gratification. It does not upset me at all.

I've probably already said this, but if speaking truthfully about things the administration has done, which happen to be wrong, is bashing, then, yes, bashing is quite necessary.
It's your patriotic duty.
Edgar, I agree with you about Clinton. Although I did vote for him twice; same reason I will next vote for Kerry. To my mind, the best alternative.

Suzy
I will vote for Kerry. With me being a Texan, my vote is thoroughly canceled out anyway, but at least I can add my voice to the overall total. Damned electoral college is a dinosaur.

I don't recall calling Clinton names. (In case you meant me.)

As it seems is the notion of adhering to election laws, for those who don't like the outcome of said elections. :wink:

Does everyone see the locks getting passed around here? Whoops, no name calling.

Actually Mr. Clinton is as bright as any I can recall.
As he hopped off a helicopter on the White House lawn one day, a sharp young marine commented on the two hogs under his arms:
"Very fine pigs, sir!"
Clinton glared at him and replied, "Son, I am from Arkansas. These are not pigs. They are razorback hawgs, born and bred in Arkansas."
"I am sorry sir, fine hawgs", saluted the marine.
Smiling, Clinton told him, "This one under my right arm, I got for Chelsea. The one, here, on my left, I got for Hillary".
"Very fine trades, sir," saluted the marine.

i copied this from the Kerry thread:



Presidents(incumbents) have two agendas:
1. Foreign policy
2. Domestic policy

Americans care more about domestic policy.
Bush's economic numbers will win him the election.

American foreign relations will not recover for 10 years.

Prediction


"It's the economy stupid"