Two Presidents, and advice for Dems
-
I read an article on CNN yesterday about how the results of the US mid-term elections would be determined more by ex-Pres. Clinton vs Pres. Bush than about candidates and issues -- both of them are the spokesmen/representatives (even if it's unofficial) for their party, and they're respective parties idolize them. If you begin thinking about what each accomplished in their time in office, there's a sharp contrast between the two: Bush is accomplishing most of what he promised to do and united and is growing his party, but Clinton is wrecking his. If you're a Democrat, think about what Clinton has accomplished and what he's doing to your party! Let history judge between these two Presidents: President X: - His party held the House (and usually the Senate) for nearly 50 years, many times with a 3-1 or 4-1 majority. In the 1st mid-term election, the opposite party won in a landslide, causing the entire legislature to change hands to the opposite party for the 1st time in 50 years. - Even with a great economy and peace, his vice-president didn't win the following election. He should have won in a landslide -- a tie or even a loss would be a major embarrassment. - His behavior in office and policies drove many moderates and a number of loyal party members to the opposite party. When campaigning, his mere presence rallies the opposite party to vote against his party. President Y: - Even after barely winning the election after a rough election, he was able to get many of his proposed policies thru a Senate controlled by the other party. - His party wins the mid-term elections, re-taking the entire legislature and putting 2 of the 3 branches of gov't under his party's control. (this hasn't happened in the US in nearly 150 years -- typically, the party opposed to the president wins the legislature to keep it "balanced"). And this is in spite of a weak economy... - His behavior and policies attract moderates and even members from the opposite party into his party. Which president will be viewed as successful by history: Pres X (Clinton) or Pres Y (Bush)? President Y (Bush)... If the Democrats want to get back into power any time soon, they need to distance themselves from Bill Clinton, because even though his own party loves him, he causes moderates and the other party to get out and vote the other way! If you can't get more people to vote FOR you, then it's just as good to not have more people vote AGAINST you! One of the main reasons Clinton lost the legislature under his terms is that h
-
I read an article on CNN yesterday about how the results of the US mid-term elections would be determined more by ex-Pres. Clinton vs Pres. Bush than about candidates and issues -- both of them are the spokesmen/representatives (even if it's unofficial) for their party, and they're respective parties idolize them. If you begin thinking about what each accomplished in their time in office, there's a sharp contrast between the two: Bush is accomplishing most of what he promised to do and united and is growing his party, but Clinton is wrecking his. If you're a Democrat, think about what Clinton has accomplished and what he's doing to your party! Let history judge between these two Presidents: President X: - His party held the House (and usually the Senate) for nearly 50 years, many times with a 3-1 or 4-1 majority. In the 1st mid-term election, the opposite party won in a landslide, causing the entire legislature to change hands to the opposite party for the 1st time in 50 years. - Even with a great economy and peace, his vice-president didn't win the following election. He should have won in a landslide -- a tie or even a loss would be a major embarrassment. - His behavior in office and policies drove many moderates and a number of loyal party members to the opposite party. When campaigning, his mere presence rallies the opposite party to vote against his party. President Y: - Even after barely winning the election after a rough election, he was able to get many of his proposed policies thru a Senate controlled by the other party. - His party wins the mid-term elections, re-taking the entire legislature and putting 2 of the 3 branches of gov't under his party's control. (this hasn't happened in the US in nearly 150 years -- typically, the party opposed to the president wins the legislature to keep it "balanced"). And this is in spite of a weak economy... - His behavior and policies attract moderates and even members from the opposite party into his party. Which president will be viewed as successful by history: Pres X (Clinton) or Pres Y (Bush)? President Y (Bush)... If the Democrats want to get back into power any time soon, they need to distance themselves from Bill Clinton, because even though his own party loves him, he causes moderates and the other party to get out and vote the other way! If you can't get more people to vote FOR you, then it's just as good to not have more people vote AGAINST you! One of the main reasons Clinton lost the legislature under his terms is that h
Chris Hambleton wrote: While I prefer Bush to Clinton as President, both parties could do a lot better about educating the public about their views and policies, instead of screaming that the other side is trying to wreck the country or saying nothing about issues. That's become an American tradition. The usual way to get elected is to steer clear of hard questions and use whatever smokescreen is available to stir up emotions. Emotional issues don't require thought - they inhibit it - and help to prevent anyone from asking about tough issues. This saves the politicians on both sides from the embarrassing situation of having to admit to having not a clue how to solve pressing problems that have taken generations to form. There are no easy fixes to the problems this country and the world suffers from, and people geared to instant gratification don't want to hear that fact. They want instant solutions that don't exist, and will elect anyone who gives the impression that passing just one more teency-weency law or tax or social program will fix everything. That's how we got the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Illiteracy, and a host of other programs that have failed utterly, as they were destined to from their inception. Their legacies continue though, in the form of ever rising taxation, social program bloating, a steady erosion of personal freedoms, and the near-complete loss of Constitutional rights. I don't see much likelihood of this tradition changing, and it's sad to see so much of the world trying so hard to emulate our example... "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: While I prefer Bush to Clinton as President, both parties could do a lot better about educating the public about their views and policies, instead of screaming that the other side is trying to wreck the country or saying nothing about issues. That's become an American tradition. The usual way to get elected is to steer clear of hard questions and use whatever smokescreen is available to stir up emotions. Emotional issues don't require thought - they inhibit it - and help to prevent anyone from asking about tough issues. This saves the politicians on both sides from the embarrassing situation of having to admit to having not a clue how to solve pressing problems that have taken generations to form. There are no easy fixes to the problems this country and the world suffers from, and people geared to instant gratification don't want to hear that fact. They want instant solutions that don't exist, and will elect anyone who gives the impression that passing just one more teency-weency law or tax or social program will fix everything. That's how we got the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Illiteracy, and a host of other programs that have failed utterly, as they were destined to from their inception. Their legacies continue though, in the form of ever rising taxation, social program bloating, a steady erosion of personal freedoms, and the near-complete loss of Constitutional rights. I don't see much likelihood of this tradition changing, and it's sad to see so much of the world trying so hard to emulate our example... "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
i'll give ya a 5 for that. -c
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-
I read an article on CNN yesterday about how the results of the US mid-term elections would be determined more by ex-Pres. Clinton vs Pres. Bush than about candidates and issues -- both of them are the spokesmen/representatives (even if it's unofficial) for their party, and they're respective parties idolize them. If you begin thinking about what each accomplished in their time in office, there's a sharp contrast between the two: Bush is accomplishing most of what he promised to do and united and is growing his party, but Clinton is wrecking his. If you're a Democrat, think about what Clinton has accomplished and what he's doing to your party! Let history judge between these two Presidents: President X: - His party held the House (and usually the Senate) for nearly 50 years, many times with a 3-1 or 4-1 majority. In the 1st mid-term election, the opposite party won in a landslide, causing the entire legislature to change hands to the opposite party for the 1st time in 50 years. - Even with a great economy and peace, his vice-president didn't win the following election. He should have won in a landslide -- a tie or even a loss would be a major embarrassment. - His behavior in office and policies drove many moderates and a number of loyal party members to the opposite party. When campaigning, his mere presence rallies the opposite party to vote against his party. President Y: - Even after barely winning the election after a rough election, he was able to get many of his proposed policies thru a Senate controlled by the other party. - His party wins the mid-term elections, re-taking the entire legislature and putting 2 of the 3 branches of gov't under his party's control. (this hasn't happened in the US in nearly 150 years -- typically, the party opposed to the president wins the legislature to keep it "balanced"). And this is in spite of a weak economy... - His behavior and policies attract moderates and even members from the opposite party into his party. Which president will be viewed as successful by history: Pres X (Clinton) or Pres Y (Bush)? President Y (Bush)... If the Democrats want to get back into power any time soon, they need to distance themselves from Bill Clinton, because even though his own party loves him, he causes moderates and the other party to get out and vote the other way! If you can't get more people to vote FOR you, then it's just as good to not have more people vote AGAINST you! One of the main reasons Clinton lost the legislature under his terms is that h
Chris Hambleton wrote: The best way to fight poverty is to create wealth, Yes, why not just primt more currency ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.