A Return to the Clinton Era: You Know You Want It

Let's face it. America's reputation around the world is in tatters. We are in a needless war. The GOP is divided over immigration. The economy is uncertain as the deficit grows, trade is imbalanced, home values vacillate and mortgage foreclosures rise. Over seven years of bumbling ineptitude, few initiatives remain for which the Bushies can claim much credit. Congress and the President are both deeply unpopular. Our foreign policy has made a new adversary out of Russia.

What many people want is a return to a time when peace reigned, America was still loved, when the economy was roaring, and when the only thing the Congress needed to worry about was whether a Democratic President kept his pants on.

In other words: Many Americans want a return to the days of a Clinton in office. Particularly when the choices are so grim.

Let's look at the most exciting choice the GOP has to offer. The buzz is all about Fred Thompson, who hasn't yet declared his candidacy. He's rapidly replacing Ron Paul as the flavor of the month, and rivals Giuliani in the polls. But Thompson's divisive form of proto-Reaganism -- archaeo-Reaganism in the post-apocalyptic Bush era -- is nothing more than a warmed-over meal. Been there, done that. It's unlikely that the majority of Americans will want a BushReaganaut under another name. I've already said what I've thought of the other GOP possibilities in another thread, and nothing has changed since then.

The popularity of Hillary Clinton, however, is rising. The latest news is that she leads Obama in the polls by double digits. And still, she holds in reserve her key asset: The potential First Gentleman status of a man who's not exactly unfamiliar with the White House himself. Bill would serve as her advisor and confidante, and much of the American people seem to realize that a first term for Hillary as President would be something of a third term for her husband.

We return, therefore, to the question of America's troubled role in the world today. We are expected to lead, and yet under the GOP, we cannot. The credibility is simply not there. A divided party cannot and does not lead. By contrast, the Democrats -- as diverse as they are -- are unified by comparison. While there are rumblings of disagreement with Bush among Republican hopefuls, not a single criticism has been uttered against the last Democratic President, and even among themselves, nary a cross word has been said.

The people of America realize all this, and they know it's time for a change. They realize that McCain is spent, that Bushism is over, and that the time for incompetence is coming to an end. They realize that a foolish amateurism is a luxury we can no longer afford. The coffins of every American soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine returning from battles fought for a reckless policy are weekly proof of that.

The year 2008 represents a watershed in American politics. It will be a test of whether the true feelings of the electorate will make themselves known, or whether the corporate masters of politics will once again rule the roost. It will be either the year Americans take back their country, or one in which our dreams are crushed once again in the loathesome dirt of political intrigue.

Only the future will tell what path awaits all Americans, and the world at large.

It's really uncanny how you can play a role to the hilt, Enterpriser.

Ya fucking psycho!

I'm pretty sure that was a cut and paste job from something Enterpriser posted about shrub at some point, but positing a return to Reagan. This guy needs to try a bit harder. It's quite sad that he's only been here a few weeks, and yet has already resorted to recycling old Enterpriser crap.

What role? Who's Enterpriser?

Look at the world around you. What matters is how the world will be changed, or how it will remain the same. All else is simply gloss.

Except for quotes from messages posted upthread to which I respond, I never cut-and-paste without attribution.

That may be true. However, a vote for Hillary would not technically be simply hope for a return to the past, and yet still would accomplish something that achieves some of its glory.

And all y'all slam ME for bringing up Clinton.

She has the experience. She was "Co-President" after all.

When she gets to the White House, she'll find all of those missing "W" keys.

Nevertheless, it's not uncommon to believe that the leader of nation plays a great role in how the government or even his country operates, particularly on the world stage. We often speak of this in contexts other than the United States -- the "Thatcher Era," for example. Entire ideologies are named after personalities -- "Stalinism" is one.

So I would say that attributing how a party is run to who leads it wouldn't be all that unusual.

I would venture that this is truer of parliamentary systems than the American form of government.

It's more complicated than that, IMO. The interaction between presidents and Congress can get really involved at times. GWB isn't nearly the Republican I would've preferred but now that he's got to work with Congress more to get anything done, he's doing more to appeal to his party than he did when he had a Republican majority.

I would question that, since many members of his party, not to mention of his party, are in open rebellion over his immigration plan.

Ugh, the last thing I want is Democrats to start fellating Clinton like Republicans pray at the thrown of all things Reagan. Guh.

Of course you can look at particular issues and find where he's not doing this but in general, he's had to appeal more lately to the Republicans to support him to stand against the Democratic majority.

He's always had his non-conservative stances and he's been able to do backroom deals to get their support as long as he supported them on other issues. Now he's gotta work to keep them united more than he did before.

I don't know, Bock. There's a lot of unhappiness over Bush, and it's been increasing for years.

For example, see the following posted on a radical right-wing website that actually considers Bush the opposite of Reagan:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060207_epiphany.htm

Here is a sampling from the article, written by Reaganaut:

(Fair Use Excerpts)

Considering that Reagan is still the Republicans' secular god, these statements against Bush by a former member of the Reagan Administration are shocking in the extreme.

You can also see a great many postings at extremist websites such as freerepublic.com that cite articles from conservatives critical of Bush, often followed by comments accusing him of treason or otherwise destroying the nation.

I've never seen anything quite like this by Democrats against other Democrats, or, up to now, by Republicans against other Republicans.

You've forgotten that Clinton launched more military actions against more nations than the Bush Administration has.

You've also forgotten the numerous terrorist attacks on the U.S. during the Clinton Admin.

The "peace & prosperity" of the Clinton Era is largely a myth.

The prosperity part is roughly the same as Americans enjoyed under the Reagan Admin. and under the current Bush Admin.

And the "peace" wasn't.

I do not want it. Clinton was more competent at doing more or less the same thing as Bush has been doing.

You also forget that in his first two years or so as President, Bill Clinton was so unpopular that his reelection was seen as a virtual impossibility.

and the Democratic Congress was so unpopular that they lost control of the U.S. House in 1994 for the first time in FORTY years.

In truth, the U.S. Congress is ALWAYS unpopular.

And by the way, regarding America's image aroung the world. It was during the Clinton Admin. that the French started denouncing the United States as a "hyper power" and longing for the rise of the European Union to counter it.

When was this, exactly?

In the 1990s.

Look up "hyperpower" on the wikipedia and it takes you directly to it.

When in the 1990's? France was very "pro-Europe as a superpower" long before that.

Methinks you just want to blame Clinton for everything.

EDIT: As regards the word "hyperpower", I notice no "denouncing" involved.

Clinton more competent than Bush? lol

Bush was handed a multi-theater war, a trashed economy, and a gutted military and is ending his terms with all in better shape than when he started.

Clinton was handed a U.S. victorious in the Cold War and a humming economy and left us vulnerable to terrorist attack and in a recession, along with the tech bubble blowing up in all our faces.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin!

When you go to catch that bus, be sure to stand in front of it. Loser.

Let me ask if you can dispute the following:

Before you accuse me of posting the foregoing from a pro-Clinton source, and before I later post the link to show that it isn't, please tell me why you think it's wrong. Please do not try to ascertain the source before answering.

Your first paragraph - Many of the exact same things could be said of GWB. Those made Clinton great? Then Bush is great.

So? Yes or no. Clinton left an economy heading to recession?

Indeed. It's hard to believe that anyone could actually believe what Bock wrote; such a complete disconnect from reality should mean accidental death at a young age. There's really nothing to do in such cases but sit back, point, mock, and laugh.

The paragraph would have be revised as follows:

As for the recession question, please see:

http://quinnell.us/politics/knowledge/recessions.html

Now that's revisionism at its finest. Thanks, mirror-universe enty - or is this really someone from farther back in WF's past?