oh, no..you're not partisan at all!! take out the word "Bush" and insert the word "Clinton" in your last quote above and see if it doesn't sound like what every Republican in America was saying for about 8 years. even ones like me who voted for Clinton the first time.
<b>Batman</b>: Nothing that <b>Nomar</b> said indicated he didn't read the article. Maybe his Mother or his Aunt told him what a lousy President Carter was; are you being a sexist?
Originally posted by Batman Jones Jesus, man. How the hell are we still "recovering" from his Iran "debacle?" How is it that whenever something bad happens on a Dem's watch, it's his PERSONAL fault? To use one of your responses... Says the 10 year-old. Isn't that how old you were during the Hostage Crisis? I don't blame the Hostage Crisis on Carter, I blame him for his inability to do a d*mn thing about it. Our President, and thus our country, appeared totally impotent and incompetent. And yet, whenever things go right under a Dem, it's dumb luck. You have no credibility with me. If you're going to fly-off the handle before you fully understand a response, I don't give a d*mn whether I have credibility with you or not. The hostage crisis happened, it was awful and it was over. And the families will never be over it, as happens with tragedies, but you could say this about any administration. And Carter didn't CAUSE the Iran deal. Here's an example of something we actually had to work to recover from: The hostage crisis is not 'over'. The US was shown to be very vulnerable and weak. People in the ME still recall the Crusades, do you think they forgot the Hostage Crisis? It took us a long time to recover from the deficits of supply side economics, but we did it. Only to be plunged into recession as soon as the next Republican prez came around to give the entire surplus away to rich folk. If you took any Economics classes, you'd know what pure garbage that is. Everyone accepts that it takes years for many policies to effect the economy, that recessions happen soon-or-later, that the recession was already starting at the end of Clinton but he's not responsible either since they will ultimately happen, the WWW and its boom occurred under Clinton while the bust (really just a normal mturation of the industry... a shake-out) occured under Bush, etc. etc. We were attacked on 9/11 in large part because this country is hated by many other smaller countries who don't appreciate us asserting our influence wherever we feel like it. Our solution? Attack more Arab countries. Blow off the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Blow off a stack of international treaties this country's already pledged to support, again in the interest of economic expedience. Carter understood the intricacies of these sorts of actions. So did Clinton. So did Bush, Sr. These guys do not get it. Some countries hate us. Some think maybe they ought to hate us, but aren't sure. This administration has made it plain to the rest of the world: We don't care about you. We're America. We have bigger guns. If you don't like it, we will kill you. HAVEN'T YOU HEARD??? WE WERE ATTACKED!!! A lot of these countries don't care about that. They've been getting attacked for years. Some of them have been getting attacked by us or by people we've armed. Carter understands this. Bush doesn't. Look forward to more terrorist attacks. We're not addressing the problem. We're making it worse. Wonderful diatribe, but what's this have to do with my statement? Oh that's right, you misunderstood it. Do you even know whether I'm pro-war? Wo you even know whether I'm Deomcrat or Republican? Carter sucked because he failed us on the Hostage Crisis, period. A ten year-old may not remember well, but how about the adults from 20 years ago: Let's see, that's about 2 in 10 Amercians approved. Wouldn't that mean that most Democrats disapproved of his presidency also? and... Batman, I'm not familiar with you overreacting and subsequently misinterpreting a response. Your posts are usually very level-headed and well thought-out. Something eating at you?
take out the word "Bush" and insert the word "Clinton" in your last quote above and see if it doesn't sound like what every Republican in America was saying for about 8 years. Why were Clinton's approval ratings shocking? Right or wrong, approval ratings tend to relate to how good the life of the person is. During the 90's, crime was down, everyone had jobs, the stock market was going nuts, we had 8 years of peace, the budget problems were finally under control -- basically, almost everything was good or improving, and this was totally the opposite of the previous 4 years. How much credit Clinton deserves is debatable, but it doesn't seem shocking that under those circumstances, people would think highly of their President.
ummmm..because he was the second president in history to be impeached...someone like me assumes that when the leader of the free world lies UNDER OATH (despite being an officer of the court in Arkansas at the time -- and ultimately rightfully disbarred) that ultimately that is more important than what limited control an american president has over the economy....again...that's just me...apparently.
Holy patronization, Batman!! Carter was the first president I ever voted for. I was in the Young Democrats at Baylor at the time, a group so large we had to meet in the corner booth at George's. I wore an Elect Carter-Mondale in '76 shirt around the largest collection of Republicans in one place that I'd ever seen. I lived through his administration and didn't have to be told about it by my high school teachers. Carter was the worst president, after Nixon, in my lifetime. He should be completely ignored, except when he's building houses.
Clinton was a very amoral individual. And the US was outwardly successful during his tenure. Of course, with the Enrons and the accounting scandels coming to light recently, it seems he wasn't alone. He was just a sign of the times. It must be the hip hop culture.
how funny!! i voted for Clinton as a freshman at Baylor!!! in 1994 mid term elections i voted a straight-Republican ticket!
Okay. This makes it clear to me that you are a very partisan person and are not looking at any facts at all.... First of all, it's debatable whether presidents have ANYTHING to do with the economy. Also, this economic downturn (it's not even, by economic definition a recession) started during the Clinton administration. Plus, don't forget the economy was hit very hard by three events: First the stock market took a beating from the dot com fallout. This is strange since everyone knew that the dot coms were worthless (i.e. not making any money) but invested heavily anyway. Greenspan even said that the market was full of "irrational exuberance". The dot coms sucked a lot of people in the market who didn't know what they were doing because they just saw the market going up. It had to correct sometime because there was nothing to back up the worth of the dot com stocks. This was on the table for all to see. It started coming apart in the late nineties. Second, another reason for the high stock market was because corporations were making these unbelievable profits. Well, it turned out the profits were, indeed, unbelievable. We are seeing (and will continue to see) many corporations restating their earnings and people going to jail as a result of this. In other words the stock market was boosted up by false information. Once again, this was during the nineties under the Clinton administration's watch. <i>(It’s kind of interesting to me that Bush gets all this flack for the corporate scandals. This misrepresentation of earnings (Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, etc…) happened under Clinton’s watch! They are being investigated and prosecuted under Bush’s watch. Let me be clear, I don’t blame either President for the actions of these crooks but it just goes to show how partisan people are and how much more attention they pay to lip service rather than action. Because the Democrats are supposed to be “anti” business – nothing further from the truth; where do you think they get their campaign money? – and the Republicans are supposed to be “pro” business people immediately buy the argument that corporate scandal is a Republican issue. Clearly, if you look at actions and not words, this whole mess happened under Clinton’s watch. He didn’t want to rock the economic boat during his administration ‘cause he wanted a “legacy”. We can clearly see now that that economic boom had very weak foundations)</i> Third, 9/11 happened. This happened during the Bush administration, but just barely. We were actually attacked several times in the recent past, 9/11 being the largest. Don't forget the Cole or the African embassy bombings (among others). Who was president during this time? Who was responsible for foreign policy during the years leading up to 9/11? I'm not ready to blame Clinton for this (except for not doing anything - he was very reactionary about foreign policy, not pro-active at all) but it was under his watch that this (so called) hatred for the U.S. was building to such an extreme that it led to the mess we are in today. The reasons some people in the Middle East hate the U.S. are varied. Some, I'm sure, are grounded in legitimate issues but others are certainly based on nothing more than a megalomaniac’s opportunity to rally troops under a "cause" so said megalomaniac can get more personal power and wealth. There are a lot of people and countries who don't hate the U.S. you just aren't hearing about it now. It's kind of like West Nile. It's the story of the day so the Media goes crazy with it even if it’s really not a big deal. Well, anger directed toward the U.S. (while certainly there) is the international story of the day and so that's what you hear about. You don't hear about the people who like the U.S. because they don't do anything interesting like blow up stuff or burn flags.
ummmm..because he was the second president in history to be impeached... Yes, but the majority of Americans didn't think he should have been impeached, so that event wouldn't really affect their view of him so much in terms of public opinion except maybe even boosting it (people tend to get defensive of others when they are being attacked - human nature). and ultimately rightfully disbarred) that ultimately that is more important than what limited control an american president has over the economy....again...that's just me...apparently. Yes, it's just you. Seriously, though -- I understand why people would disapprove of him - he certainly have plenty of shortcomings. However, just looking at the country as a whole and his theoretically delivering on his promise of things being better 4/8 years from when he took office, I don't think its surprising that the majority of people approved of his performance.
(It’s kind of interesting to me that Bush gets all this flack for the corporate scandals. This misrepresentation of earnings (Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, etc…) happened under Clinton’s watch! They are being investigated and prosecuted under Bush’s watch. Let me be clear, I don’t blame either President for the actions of these crooks but it just goes to show how partisan people are and how much more attention they pay to lip service rather than action. The reason that Bush / Republicans get a larger share of the blame here is two-fold: (1) Many of the people involved in these scandals are personal & business friends of Bush and/or Cheney. Enron was heavily involved in the Bush campaign, lending them private jets and such. That simply goes to the image of it being a Republican thing, right or wrong. (2) Democrats in the 1990's proposed stricter regulations that would have made some of the things Enron & other companies did illegal (some of these "fraud" things aren't technically illegal; others are). Republicans shot those proposals down. Traditionally, the Republican Party has been anti-regulation on business issues, and many of the things that Enron did were made possible by deregulation. Doesn't mean it *should* all fall on the Republican Party, but those are the main reasons that the image is portrayed that way. It's no different than Gore being criticized for wanting to shrink the military even though he proposed more military spending than Bush did. Image is everything, and the Democrats have a soft-on-military image. Similarly, the Republicans have a soft-on-business image.
I understand that people don't/didn't agree with me...I just find it disappointing that people expect so little of people they elect to hold public office...and ultimately expect so little of themselves. yeah...he "delivered" on those promises, right? look what he left behind!!
yeah...he "delivered" on those promises, right? look what he left behind!! What exactly was that? Besides leaving us with GW Bush?! (damn those scandals!)
