Republicans Hate Bill Clinton Again

Bill Kristol lying about Bill Clinton:

Clinton was too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief in 1992. . . . He was handed an enviable situation in foreign policy . . . Over the rest of the decade, Clinton managed to allow further erosion in the position of American strength he inherited. Clinton didn’t, as he now claims, lead us “to a new era of peace.” He inherited a hard-won peace, failed to lead, and part of his legacy is 9/11.

Heh. The Left blogs are now back in the business of defending Bill Clinton, so you can see the refutation of this nonsense in other venues. But Kristol's use of the word "inherited" brought the famous Onion headline Bush: "Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Over", to mind. More. . .

And The Onion article proved Republicans are satire proof at this point:

President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us." "My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Bush is beyond satire. And, as Clinton said last night, they want 4 more years? Thanks, but no thanks.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< OnThe Bus | Live from invesco >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It amazes me (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:16:36 PM EST
    that the Republicans blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 as easily as they breathe, while the Democrats refuse to come within a million miles of making the mirror-image claim against Bush.

    Sure, the blogs always talk about things like the bin Laden memo, Bush blowing off the CIA briefer, and all that stuff.  Richard Clarke has documented the Bush Administration's failures leading up to 9/11 in virtually unimpeachable form.  But - setting aside the question of whether they should or shouldn't - you just never hear the Democrats going there.  You never hear them say that Bush is the guy whose incompetence allowed 9/11 to happen.

    It's really remarkable and indicative of a deep divide between the ways the two parties do business.  If a Democrat had been in Bush's position, the right-wing noise machine would have been blaming him within days.  The 2004 election would have been all about whether we should reelect this guy whose fecklessness got us attacked.  They would not have shied away from the issue one iota.

    Funny thing, huh?

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:19:09 PM EST
    that's why we need a fighting Dems not wimps.

    The Republican penchant for aggressive politics... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:21:36 PM EST
    matched by the Democratic tendency towards defensiveness, is really quite something.

    Even in a year when everything favors the Democrats, McCain is going on about how great the surge was and how Obama will raise your taxes. Obama is all about post-partisanship and was talking about Republican VP nominees. Can't we ever be proud of our party?


    Sure (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    But Democrats are better, and that is a politcal price we pay.

    Here's the thing - all you need to say is McCain = Bush. A LOT, and it will have the same effect. That is the political climate today.


    I thought so... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:24:09 PM EST
    ... but even the GOP never accused Bill Clinton of racism.

    Orange, I am in the process of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
    working all this out too, the racism charges that got me ballistic.  I don't like Obama but that doesn't mean he won't make a decent president and one better than what the Republicans offer.

    It's an interesting equation.  On the Left is Barack Obama with all his negatives, the worst of which was intimating that Bill Clinton brought race into the race for the nomination.  We have to decide how evil is that and have similar evil deeds been done by all the other presidential candidates through the years.  The Republicans never stop doing that crap, they are constipated with it.  It just flows out of their mouths.  

    Obama never came out and called Bill a racist. what he did was to intimate that Bill opened the door for people to think about race and that Obama is black.  Unfortunately, our press, that should rot in hell, adopted that as their raison d'etre.  And before that he went after Clinton pretty hard with his praise of Reagan and then joining George W. Bush and Clinton at the hip as two presidents who really didn't do good for the USA.  For that and for his relentless attack on Bill, I think he is a scumbag.  His tactics were disgusting but he was never called out on them by the press who was too busy licking his ass.  Then, how often do you have a presidential candidate whose husband was president?  I don't like Obama and I guess I never will.

    On the right side we have McCain and maybe Romney or Giuliani.  Remember when Rudy said about 9/11, "I looked up at the sky and said thank god George W. Bush is president."  Republicans go way below scum.  They are hateful, nasty, hypocritical pigs who look out only for themselves and if they screw 250 million people they couldn't care less because they are born without consciences.  People without consciences go to the Republican Party and the Republican Party has evolved into that for these horrible human beings to have a sanctuary.

    So, yeah, I hate Barack and Michelle Obama for my own purist reasons but even though they scraped the bottom for this election they are decent people who have similar values to you and I.  They are not George W. Bush, Neil Bush, Dick Cheney, William Bennett, that little pr__k who used to head the Christian Coalition-
    Ralph Reed, George Allen...and all the rest of them who never should have been allowed to have jobs in Washington, DC.

    So, we have to deal with that equation because McCain is pandering to the feces who elect these animals.  He seems to want to be their friends and he seriously identifies with the Conservative movement.  We can't afford to allow these roaches to stay in DC.  I am torn too but Obama is the lesser of two evils by a lot.  

    Is anyone having trouble getting on Google?


    Naw, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    gotta be more. Steve M quoted a poll number that said 77% of the public already believes this. Considering Obama's lackluster performance in the polls I would say follow Hillarys lead. Being against McCain simply isn't enough. You are going to have to go the policy route.

    Hee hee (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    I keep quoting that number because some of the anti-Obama commenters keep saying "Give it up, no one will buy that McCain is Bush's third term."  So then I quote the statistic, and now your argument is that since people already believe it, nothing to be gained by saying it again!

    I completely agree that Obama needs to make an affirmative case for himself on policy, but the anti-McCain narrative is very simple and should be driven home again and again.  "More of the same" isn't even specific enough, it ought to be about Bush.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    I don't think that railing against Bush is going to do anything more than get us another loss like 2004. Obama is polling worse than Kerry and that is what he did.

    You have to make the case that Dems are simply better like Hillary. I think one of the reasons Obama is doing so poorly in the polls is because of the kumbaya post partisan crap. You can't convince people that McCain is bad when in the next sentence you are preaching holding hands with him.


    I disagree, sort of (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:54:08 PM EST
    McCain = Bush isn't good enough.  They don't come across as the same person at all in terms of personality, and so far both campaigns have been running on bio and personality.

    The comparison won't work unless it is made very specifically.  Most people don't hate Bush, even now, the way the Dkos et al gang do.  Haven't you ever worked with someone who was likeable but a lousy manager?

    The comparison has to be made on continuation of particular policies.  This is what a lot of the anti-McCain crowd doesn't get.  Eg, the biggest chunk of people against the war now are fed up because it went on too long and it's been mismanaged.  They are not against war across the board, and would be fine with the war if we'd won.  (I'm not saying that was ever possible).  These are not people who suddenly adopted the belief system of the people who were against the war all along.  Ras has the number of people who believe we are winning the war in Iraq creeping up over 50%. (I can't remember what day I saw that).  So tying McCain to Bush/the war generically doesn't do a whole lot.

    Yes, 77% of people believe McCain will continue Bush' policies, but not counting the convention bounce today, McCain and Obama have been practically tied for weeks.  The generic argument isn't good enough.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    I am not saying there is a point in using that message today.  But thinking back, it's hard to believe we let this idiot get reelected in 2004 because we were too nice to blame him for 9/11, even as tools like Kristol go around blaming Clinton all the time.  Sometimes I'm not sure whether it's a case of being nicer or just plain political malpractice.

    I mean, part of the politics of contrast is talking about the adverse effects of your opponent's policies, like Bill Clinton did very effectively last night.  Okay, so we're willing to blame the economy on Reaganomics.  But if Pawlenty is the VP, or even if he's not, are we willing to point out that tax cuts make bridges fall down?  Or are we going to keep on being so nice that we refuse to draw factual connections?


    Actually, (none / 0) (#25)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    I personally blame Bush's incompetence for 9/11. I did after the info came out and I still do.

    Does that make me a bad democrat :-(


    You and I do (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    but Democrats running for office never do!

    Republicans in 2004 said that Bush was the only person who could keep the country safe.  And instead of pointing out the obvious, all Democrats could do is say "wah, wah, how dare you suggest we wouldn't keep the country safe too."  Bleh.


    That's pretty sad. (none / 0) (#31)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    And for what it's worth, I almost threw up when the Republicans had the gall to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. I'm dead serious. My eyes actually crossed and I was looking for a bucket because I was so enraged.

    Someone needs to grow a pair and tell it like it is. The other side seems perfectly content with defaming the patriotism of various democrats, why shouldn't they get fed with a similar medicine (except the medicine that we feed them will actually be the truth)?


    Before this campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    ... I didn't fully understand people who were cynical about politics. Now I do.

    This is so tiresome, on every side. I can't wait until I never have to hear from any of these people ever again.

    Given the time and effort... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:32:13 PM EST
    ...the right wing has invested in cultivating hatred of all things Clinton, it is not at all surprising they're back at it.  They're not going to let the hate go that easily.  It defines them.  It is who they are.

    They never left. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by themomcat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    They were just waiting in the wings while the DNC ate its own. ;-)

    What's (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST
    amazing is that there were many Obama supporters quoting Kristol verbatim. Even Obama agreed with a lot of what Kristol has said.

    Who needs (none / 0) (#34)
    by themomcat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    a right wing conspiracy when we have our own on the left. ;-)

    As an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#35)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:04:53 PM EST
    from the more-or-less beginning, I must say that that is absolutely disgusting.

    Does he actually believe that 9/11 was Bill Clinton's fault?


    Not that (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    I know of but he does agree with him regarding the 90's economy. Now, Obama's supporters have blamed Bill for 9/11.

    "..the debacle in Somalia" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by themomcat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    Since Kristol can blame Clinton for 9/11, we can blame Bush I for Somalia? Wait, Somalia was Bush I's disaster that he left for Clinton. And as I recall, the then Democratic Congress found a spine and gave Clinton 6 months to get the troops out of Somalia. I love neo-con revisionist history.

    Name this cut-and-runner (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.

    Answer here.


    One of my favorite hypocrits. ;-) n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by themomcat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    We knew that was going to be the shortest lived honeymoon in history. Let's just hope our 'friends' on the Left don't jump back on the bandwagon as well. That, more than anything, has been one of the biggest crimes perpetrated during this campaign season.

    The sad (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    thing is that I have seen Kristol's used verbatim by Obama supporters.

    Oh, well, you reap what you sow.


    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    Sadly, those on the left with CDS took the Right Talking Points of the 90s and ran with them. That's what hurts so much. I've had the same arguments with Democrats that I had with Republicans (particularly dittoheads) 15 years ago. I feel like I'm in a timewarp.

    The party on the left is now the party on the right...etc.


    Right wing talking points? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    On left blogs?

    No way!
    (It was amazing how mad people got when we pointed out that they were using not only RW talking points, but really OLD talking points.)


    That thump you felt (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    was the world returning to its axis.

    Oh, yeah.  Looks like when I want to see the future predicted accurately, I'm going to the Onion.  I can't wait to watch Cheney playing hoop.

    not quite yet.... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    the GOP hasn't taken full advantage of Hillary Clinton yet (expect to hear a lot of "our biggest fear was that the Dems would wake up and nominate an experienced leader like Clinton" kind of stuff during the convention -- slams at Obama disguised as "honest" analysis...)

    Oh yeah. (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST
    Reunited and it feels so good...

    Time to beat some Republican @ss.


    No profanity (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:22:20 PM EST

    Sorry (none / 0) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    It was an "excited utterance."  But I won't let it happen again.

    My old politics discussion forum (none / 0) (#24)
    by zyx on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:44:31 PM EST
    hates Bill and Hill again. They are laying it on with a trowel.

    I think they forget that Obama isn't running against the Clintons, poor dummies. And they don't get that Obama has to go out and get the voters pretty much on his own. That is what the primary was for, right? Picking the candidate who could make the case for Americans to elect him or her.


    Oh, by "my old forum" (none / 0) (#28)
    by zyx on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:46:43 PM EST
    I mean the Dems.

    And I'm not talking about anything like Big Orange.

    And the CDS and died down for weeks now--that is why I had ventured back. But sadly, they are back in full cry.


    What? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:55:15 PM EST
    Dems are still attacking the Clintons? I guess we'll see tonight whether others in the party have moved past it.

    I think they are just incredibly insecure (none / 0) (#37)
    by zyx on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:29:26 PM EST
    Their guy can't measure up to Bill. So they try to tear Bill down at every chance.



    Well said (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:16:43 PM EST
    I think they forget that Obama isn't running against the Clintons, poor dummies.

    Unfortunately, I think Obama's forgotten too.  And the time for him to remember has nearly run out.


    It's nice that some Democrats (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jake Left on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:38:50 PM EST
    are starting to defend our most successful Democrat. Most of the Dem blogs were sounding more like republican rant sites in the last  few months.

    Obama will not win if he doesn't carry though on some of the themes from the Clinton's speeches.

    We did it before and we can do it again.


    We fixed the republican mess only to have george and his friends break it again. But we can fix it again.

    We have to refer to the prosperity, peace, and employment from the Clinton era. Gore avoided using Clinton. Kerry ran away from the Clinton record and tried to be a war candidate. Both lost.

    Painting with (none / 0) (#39)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST
    a broad brush, eh BTD?
    And Democrats are socialists.