"Let Me Quote President Clinton"

Proving that Bill Clinton screwed up royally and should just stay out of ongoing political disputes, Mitch McConnell made some hay:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is leveraging an unusual ally to provide his party with cover from Democratic attack on the Paul Ryan budget and Medicare reform: Bill Clinton. In an extended question-and-answer session with reporters Friday, McConnell name-dropped the former Democratic president several times. It seemed like the answer to any question — whether on how many trillions need to be saved in a deal to raise the debt limit or what the Democrats’ victory in a New York special election meant for 2012 — started with the same refrain. “Let me quote President Clinton,” McConnell would begin.

Clinton must be aware by now that he screwed up. Now it is time for him to shut up.

Speaking for me only

< House Passes Funding Bill With World-Wide War and Detention Authority | Chief Justice Roberts Appoints Two New FISA Court Judges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    I knew this was coming. Just like Newt Gingrich using "right wing social engineering". This is also why I'm very much against PPUS. It gives the GOP cover.

    That's the intention of PPUS. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by observed on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    P-POTUS-A comes first, policy second.

    And if anybody (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    thinks that Clinton is going "rogue" on this only needs to look here:
    Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform
    President-Elect Says He'll Reshape Social Security, Medicare Programs

    just as a heads up (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    the date on that article is January 16, 2009.

    That's not to say it's not relevant, but it wasn't said in today's context.

    Also, given the ACA you might say that it's already been done.


    I just (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    happen to think that Clinton let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak.

    Look at Obama's behavior and statements and you don't only need the article from 2009 to tell you what he thinks about "entitlements". Just think WWRD (What Would Reagan Do) and you can pretty much predict where Obama's coming from.


    Are there no entitlements (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    in the massive healthcare reform bill Obama spent a year and a half getting passed?



    Yes, you're entitled to hand over your money (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by observed on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:06:50 PM EST
    to a mega-insurance corporation.

    Gotta (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:27:51 PM EST
    make sure money flows to a business that has no value to society.

    You're talking (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    about the Private Health Care Insurance Industry Relief Act of 2010.

    The Medicaid (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    expansion which he is probably willing to do away with soon now that he has brought into the Grover Norquist way.

    or WWCD (3.50 / 2) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    "What would Clinton do?" I mean its not like Bill was exactly shy about slashing entitlements (see: Welfare "reform") he just happened to draw the line at Medicare, if Obama cut Medicare but drew a line in the sand on Social Security he'd be following the Clinton model to a "T".

    You obvioulsy (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    know nothing about the Welfare system as it was if your'e defending it. My ex sister in law was in it and it stunk. She got something like $200 a month in spending money and had a hard time even getting her children clothes. When she went under "workfare" she did so much better. She actually had money to buy her kids clothes and still got benefits like childcare paid for. She would never go back to the old welfare system. Only people like you think that not letting people get ahead would be a good thing.

    You don't even need to know the details (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by observed on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:26:12 PM EST
    to know that Clinton's welfare reform was a success. Welfare IS NOT AN ISSUE, since Clinton's term. He took it away from Republicans, on the one hand; on the other, I don't see many Democrats pining for the old system.

    If that's your measure of success (none / 0) (#40)
    by Rojas on Sat May 28, 2011 at 03:46:18 AM EST
    by all means, don't let the details get in the way.

    She was (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:32:35 AM EST
    able to get a job that paid enough and had benefits. She was able to buy a house and take care of her three children. You think welfare is better than that? When she was just getting Medicaid for the children she had a hard time getting them care too. A lot of MDs don't take Medicaid.

    who wants the old (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Sat May 28, 2011 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    System back? I  cannot think of one person. That is very telling

    Do you know how the system is (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 28, 2011 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    now?  Has each state made cuts and changes or can they even do that? I remember with workfare that one of my friends was getting her childcare paid for which made everything else possible for her.  And this is going to sound very strange, but in order for an agency to qualify for workfare kids they had to meet some steep criteria so if I was seeking childcare, a place that was cleared to receive workfare funds was also top shelf and a place that I should consider too.  What happened under workfare that caused me to notice this was when the facility that did care for my daughter decided to become a workfare facility and I witnessed all the upgrades they made to the facility.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 28, 2011 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    I only know how it worked for my ex-sister in law in the 90's. She really was able to get ahead with workfare. The paying for childcare made a HUGE difference for her too. I don't know about the standards but I would imagine that Clinton made sure they weren't putting their kids in bad places. That would be horrible PR ya know? I really don't know what happened to workfare under Bush as she was already out of it and had a good job and a home.

    Clinton and Newt's reforms (none / 0) (#49)
    by Rojas on Sat May 28, 2011 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    mostly turned the responsibility over to the states. How it worked under Bush would be irrelevant unless you are referring to his term as governor.

    Bush (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 28, 2011 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    and the GOP could have changed the requirements or changed the dollar amount. There's plenty of things that could be done on the federal level on that account. But like I said, my ex-sister in law was out of the program by the time Bush came into office anyway.

    The GOP wrote the requirements (none / 0) (#51)
    by Rojas on Sun May 29, 2011 at 09:24:58 AM EST
    While clinton had campained on the issue, the bill was introduced as part of the "Contract with America".
    On the federal side they increased the EITC in 2003.
    I believe the EITC has beed revised again to allow additional payment for a third child.

    I expect we are going to see a hell of allot more people pushed past the breaking point as budget strapped states pull back their support.


    Well, it seems President Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    and Speaker Gingrich were negotiating a change to social security, with Clinton's Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles as go-between.  One of the big ideas was to, at least, partially privatize social security and to tap into the merits of the stock market.  Hang-ups included who would manage the accounts, the private or governmental sectors. It all came to an end with the Lewinsky scandal, when the president now needed his liberal base (he had been ready to absorb the expected heat) for support.  As Bowles said later: "Monica changed everything.  Of course, Bowles, along with that cat, Alan Simpson, were on hand for another day.

    My understanding (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    was that Bill wanted to use some money in the trust fund in the stock market but not privatize it like the Brazil model that the GOP was using.

    Anyway, like you said that all came to an end.


    My understanding also (none / 0) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    Thankfully it didn't happen.

    Two straight "Democrats" in the White House who, in an earlier era, would have been Republicans.


    Given the Carter fixation on inflation we could call it three in a row.


    Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    has already cut Medicare and he's getting ready to cut Social Security apparently.

    I think there will be more (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    "cuts", or "savings" to Medicare.  The worst would be additional "means-testing", putting it on the welfare path so as to join up, eventually, with the politically vulnerable Medicaid.   And, Medicaid is in for it;  Social security might make it through this round.

    Means (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    testing is one of the WORST ideas out there. This originated with Jimmy Carter.

    Yes, whatever Obama put in the ACA will be gone before it even gets started.


    So... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Thanin on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    then either Clinton is advocating for, as you suggest, Obama's true position (therefore it's all still Obama's fault), or he was playing some 11th dimensional chess with ryan.  This just sounds like blind faith for Clinton.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:30:03 AM EST
    I think it's just like when Bill was defending "the deal" back in December. Since Bill is no longer in charge of policy I just have to go with he's being a good solider for Obama.

    No, I don't believe in 11th dimensional chess. I take it for face value.


    Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Thanin on Sat May 28, 2011 at 08:13:45 AM EST
    but if you take it at face value, then Clinton was advocating for that position in a private conversation - as far as he knew - to ryan and wasn't trying to defend any position Obama has directly taken, unlike "the deal".  So it seems a reasonable suggestion would be that Clinton might just actually believe what he said to ryan and wasn't just following orders from above.

    By the way... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Thanin on Sat May 28, 2011 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    I should have been more explicit: I was specifically referring to Medicare vouchers.  I may be wrong but I don't think Obama has publicly endorsed that.  In fact I think he's rejected it?  I know he's endorsed possible Medicare cuts.

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 28, 2011 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    what I got from what Clinton said is I hope it doesn't keep you from doing "something". I don't think that doesn't necessarily mean vouchers.

    Something could be advocating for cuts.

    We shall see what Obama will agree to. He has endorsed the Simpson Bowles commission which recommends cuts in Social Security and Medicare.


    Well (none / 0) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    If, as you say, Clinton's advocating for Obama's true position then it certainly is Obama's fault.

    I didn't know... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Thanin on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:42:27 PM EST
    Clinton was a lapdog of Obamas?  Interesting...

    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    considering that the ACA took money out of Medicare then you would probably say that he's already done some of the cuts.

    People on Social Security have not gotten any more money since Obama came into office either.


    T/F (none / 0) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    On a net basis, ACA increased or decreased entitlements.

    I don't think the answer to that is what you are indicating it is.


    Neither (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    It pursue the Wimpy methodology.

    "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday (Tues.=2014) for a hamburger today (Medicare budget cuts began 2011)".

    The promised expansion of Medicaid is the equivalent to Wimpy's Tuesday which may never actually happen. The budget cuts  


    The only (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    thing in the ACA that would be considered an entitlement would be the Medicaid expansion but then there were large cuts to Medicare in that bill too.

    You mean (none / 0) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    rolling back the same medicare expansion passed almost entirely on party-lines in 2003 (hint: It was Dem's voting against it not the GOP)?

    It's still (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    a cut isn't it?

    Yep, Obama is not jumping on this (none / 0) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    "opportunity" either.

    I don't believe Bill Clinton says (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Anne on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    anything he doesn't mean to say - he's too smart to be caught off-guard.  He's also been called on to save Obama's bacon on more than one occasion; apparently, ABG is not the only one who believes that having Clinton come out in support of some Obama policy "the base" is having a problem with is the answer to corraling the dissidents into line.

    I wish these so-called political geniuses knew how offensive that tactic is.

    The only thing that surprises me is that it took this long for the GOP to use Clinton's remarks in support of their own agenda; I think there's more than a little desperation on the Republicans' part to co-opt the Dems so that Medicare is no longer an issue either side can campaign on, and the only question is, will it work?

    In any event, I am completely over Clinton as the good Democratic soldier in service to policies that just plain suck; I truly wish he would go to Joplin, Missouri and work some fundraising and community-restoration magic: those people really need the help.

    he's doing GREAT service to this busy working (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by seabos84 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    stiff -

    he's reminding me what a dope, what a dupe, what a putz and what a fool I was for believing / HOPING that clint-0-bama was something other than a freaking sell out scam.

    instead of wasting my pittance of pennies or my shards of time or my lonely vote on lying sell outs, I'll waste 'em on people who think mitch & co. need to be beaten, all the time and all ways possible.

    thanks bill! sometimes I'm kind of busy, and might forget that the "D" after the name of the people in your crowd is a disgusting joke.



    Medicare is on the table for the Dems. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by rennies on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    McConnell announced today that he would not extend the debt ceiling unless there were Medicare cuts -- and he said this was already "on the table" in the Biden bipartisan discussions.

    Surprise! Surprise!

    It looks like it is up to Obama and (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    Congressional Democrats to bail out the Republicans.  And, we can bet the farm that they will do it--in the name of acting in a very timely  and responsible way.  Of course, that will level the Medicare playing field for 2012, it is the bipartisan thing to do, and we need to "Save Privatizing Ryan."

    there will be a warped justice to it - (none / 0) (#38)
    by seabos84 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:43:42 PM EST
    last fall Patty Pathetic Murray was up for re-election, and the attack ads on her were relentless -

    relentlessly blaming her for stuff all instigated by raygun and bush I and cheney and rummy and rove and atewater and ailes and bush II ... BUT

    how many villain votes did she rotate into? (approving bernanke - voting against the patriot act BUT voting for cloture to get to the vote ! ha ha )

    The fun part of this is that the Dims who chase the incessantly marching rightward goal posts are just kicked in the teeth by the thugs, anyway!

    oh well, I proudly voted "medicare forall" in her race, so at least I lost fair and square.



    Once again (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    a chance to butcher Republicans goes out the window.

    We are so screwed.


    What if he's only frontrunning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    for the Obama administration though?  He has come to Obama's aid a couple of other times when the policy was horrible and the base was having a fit.  This is may be anonether of those times and he's just frontrunning.

    Well, when President Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    mentioned at the Pete Petersen-sponsored conference that it would not be a catastrophe if the budget ceiling was not raised (at least for a little while), it was only a matter of hours before his staff issued a clarification and noted that he "misspoke".    A little off script--but dangerously so.   But, there was not a similar clarification on his Medicare comments.-so, it is, in my view, on script.

    I have been very busy and did not know (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:39:37 PM EST
    this.  Thank you for the information.  What in the HELL is Clinton thinking?

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    what I'm thinking. He tried to defend Obama's tax cuts for the wealthy too.

    Bill is a party person first and foremost. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have campaigned for Obama.