Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are not a big deal, says people of Toronto…StateofDisbelief, your name fits you exactly…

May 29, 2009

Doing my morning reading at the Confluence got me chuckling.  Counting down the days until I give my History final, I began to put a recent post at the Confluence into context.

The quote “History writes itself” is running through my head looking at another Chicken Little, the sky is falling and Obama is asleep at the wheel posts.  Reading Stateofdisbelief, they find themselves in a nightmare that they are unable to wake up from.  But, the sad state of affairs is that it’s reality and while they attempt to tell you its raining, its really someone pissing on your head…or your computer

I Try…I Really Do

Posted on May 28, 2009 by Stateofdisbelief http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/i-try-i-really-do/

Now, if you think that’s bad you should see what they cut from that video.  Apparently POTUS, sans TOTUS, proclaimed himself to be the bestus presidentus EVAH “since FDR.”

“I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR,” Obama said. “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.”

Now, I can take a lot of crap but hearing him fawn all over himself and declare that he is better than Bill Clinton is more than I can stand.  I honestly think blood poured out of my eyes and ears when I saw that.  Who the hell??? what the hell?? Jeebuscripes on a cracker!  And the fucking crowd goes wild???

Now, before you get the wrong idea, Bill Clinton was a good president.  But, this is EXACTLY the PROBLEM WITH PUMAS.  They take things COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, so that they can have some hidden rhetorical high ground for hating that Hillary lost.

Here are some of the things wrong with this persons rant.

1) IT’S A HOLLYWOOD FUNDRAISER.  There is always some hyperbole in a fundraiser.  Yes, you are speaking to your base, asking them to go into their pockets FOR OTHER DEMOCRATS!

Kris Alingod – AHN Contributor

Los Angeles, CA (AHN) – President Barack Obama drew more than 200 Hollywood celebrities to a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Wednesday night, saying his presidency would not have been possible without them and giving assurances about his accomplishments in his first months in office.

2) Even if someone has to defend Obamas record in the first hundred days plus of his presidency, holding someone to JUST THAT STANDARD IS STUPID.
A) PLUS, you want to measure 100 days of Obama versus 8 years of Clinton?  He better be MUCH BETTER or what the hell was that dude doing in office?
B) Besides, I like to have evidence for all my points.  David Greenburg points out the folly of your rant…

The main reason that the hundred days are an unreliable indicator of future performance is the same reason we watch them so closely: They constitute the period in which the public is just getting to know the new president, and in which the president is just getting to know his new job. New presidents tend to be clueless about governing. Even running a large state can’t prepare them for the responsibilities, attention or demands to act quickly — just as they need to find their footing. (FDR’s term hardly defined his legacy; many of his greatest achievements came later.) Sizing up presidents based on their hundred days is like judging a rookie from his first cuts in spring training.

David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University, is the author of “Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image.”

But, if you want to measure, Greenburg has laid out Clintons first 100 days

By 1992 Bill Clinton was promising during his campaign, “I’ll have the bills ready the day after I’m inaugurated, I’ll send them to Congress, and we’ll have a hundred-day period. It will be the most productive period in modern history.” The boast proved impossible to fulfill. A few important measures such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act followed, but nothing Rooseveltian.

But, Greenburg also critiques the Obama administration

With April 30 looming, he has managed, to his credit, to pass a stimulus bill (albeit through rougher waters than he hoped), roll out a banking-crisis fix (with fewer details than Wall Street hoped) and propose a mortgage solution (with less money than everyone hoped). He’s signed a few ballpoint-ready Democratic bills like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and issued executive orders closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and overturning the anti-abortion “gag rule” for family-planning centers overseas.A lot of people are still expecting more. In his speech before Congress last month, Obama promised initiatives to tap new sources of domestic energy, contain global warming, invest in education and toughen financial regulations — not to mention the rather large matter of health-care reform. The hundred days is surely, as historian Arthur Schlesinger once said, a “trap.”

The trap that Schlesinger talks about proves the power of clairvoyance.  The PUMAS fall right into the category.  Nothing that Obama is going to do will satisfy them.  Everything is wrong and purposefully done to make their lives as miserable as possible.  Even the appointments of Hillary to SOS and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court have some hidden agenda behind them.

3) If you want to walk down memory lane, there are some doozies in the first hundred days of Clinton

Exhibit A.  Attorney Generalgate Dr. Bill Long (quals there…) explains the issues

Clinton’s first big mistake was his inability to find an attorney general. He wanted a woman for the post (actually, he tried, and largely succeeded, in making his Cabinet reflective of the diversity of America), and so it seemed that he would first run through every woman who hired illegal immigrants to watch her kids before finding one that didn’t. Finally, on Feb. 11, he had a “live one,” to quote his chief of staff, in Jane Reno. But she wasn’t confirmed until March 11, well after a big problem had broken out (more about that below). But his repeated failures in getting an AG made Clinton seem to be an amiable, if not misguided, boob.

Ouch! He went there.  But, that is the image that most PUMAS like to remember, the homespun charm and everyman quality.  But, in terms of policy successes and failures, that was a major one.  That had the feeling of incompetence to it.

Exhibit B GAYS IN THE MILITARY


This is one of the bigger complaints that PUMAS have about the Obama presidency is that he hasn’t eliminated this standard.  But, lest we forget, how did the standard come about? CLINTON!  You know, one of their own? Dr. Long continues…


The second “mistake” was in being distracted with his “gays in the military” issue. Clinton isn’t very clear on all the dynamics of why that issue came to the fore when it did, but he says that on January 25, five days after he took the oath of office, the Joint Chiefs requested an “urgent” meeting with him about the issue. He doesn’t say if this was a response to something he had already set in motion or was simply to vent some concerns they had about what he would do. From the gaps in Clinton’s account, it could have been a sort of “set up”–where the military folk, which were all Republican appointees, might have wanted to “steal his thunder” early in the Administration by potentially embarrassing him. I don’t think this is the case, but there may be some truth in it. Clinton was inexperienced in Washington. There was no secret that even though Colin Powell was the consummate military officer he didn’t like the Clinton-Gore approach to governing one bit (when Powell was at Willamette University last December he rolled his eyes describing the informality of a Clinton Cabinet meeting). So, I have to leave that one undecided at this point. It did cause a major “distraction” for Clinton for months, however. (emphasis included by Dr. Long)

Just for kicks, there is video evidence of this…


Exhibit C. BRANCH DAVIDIANS


That was on his watch…There also is no passing the buck onto Janet Reno, since he had to give the authorization to go ahead with the assault. Dr. Long details why…

I think the biggest mistake, which few people talk about these days, was the deadly bungling of the raid of the ATF officials on the Branch Davidian headquarters outside of Waco TX on April 19, 1993. Just do a Google search on the topic if you want to know a lot more. Suffice it to say that on Feb. 28, 1993, the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms…in the Treasury Department), which had been tipped off about the Branch Davidians’ collecting weapons since summer 1992, finally decided to raid the complex. Only problem was, the ATF had called a local ambulance company to notify them that they should be on the ready (possibility of a shoot-out, which is what happened), the ambulance company notified the newspaper, the newspaper reporter got lost on the way to the Branch Davidian compound and asked a local mailman where it was, the local mailman happened to be the brother-in-law of David Koresh, who was the leader of the Branch Davidians. Of course, the brother-in-law called Koresh, who set up his people to shoot to kill, and in the ensuing attempt of ATF to raid the compound four of them were killed and 20, a full 1/4 of the agents sent along, were injured. Several Davidians were killed.

Why I know that I like Dr. Long is that he already has the pre-empts to the arguments that people will make to justify this decision.

This set off a 51-day standoff, which was miserably ended by a decision made by Reno which Clinton approved. He recounts it inadequately in his autobiography. The decision was to tear-gas the facility, even though there were possibly 25 children in the house. As it was, the facility caught on fire, incinerating more than 80 people. Justifications for it were easily forthcoming–these are “bad” people, Koresh was another Jim Jones, the kids were abused, etc. etc., but nothing, in my mind, could cover up the fact that Clinton, working through a terribly inexperienced AG, made a very poor decision. I think what was behind it was that the FBI, which had already spent upwards of $50 million on the siege, just wanted to end it. It was the high-handed and dumb manner in which this siege was ended that led, ultimately, to the bombing of the Murrah building in OKC exactly two years later. Dumbness has its consequences.

So,  under the first hundred days of the Clinton campaign, we had he inability to appoint an AG, the passing of  “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation, (which was started by the gays in the military discussions and the hurting troop morale arguments he allowed himself to be blinded with during his first hundred days) and the Branch Davidian conflict.  While I don’s exactly agree with the conclusion by republicnas, its sorta funny.

But, as of the end of April 1993, as some Republicans were fond of saying, “At the White house there were just two senior people–Christopher (Warren Christopher) and Bentsen (Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen). Other than that it was just ‘Home Alone.'”

When you measure the results, you have to be able to remove yourself from the situation.  Most of the writers/commenters at the Confluence are unable to do so.

But, the real reason that I decided to post, and the other part of the title is to look at the fact that a discussion with Clinton and George W. Bush was not sold out.  The people of the T.Dot, and home to blogroll rapper Drake, seemingly don’t care that the number 42 and 43rd presidents are going to speak.

Tenille Bonoguore

From Thursday’s Globe and Mail, Friday, May. 29, 2009 03:41AM EDT

Instead, he’ll be back to his usual Friday afternoon, and planning the next road trip to see his favourite rock band.

David Bester is a man willing to go to great lengths for a spectacular show. Indie rock band The Hold Steady is worth it, he says. U.S. Presidents numbers 42 and 43 are not.

So he’s selling the two tickets he purchased to tomorrow afternoon’s “conversation” between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre for less than their $189 face value.

“I bought them the day they became available. At the time I was very excited to go,” Mr. Bester said yesterday.

“It seemed like a really neat opportunity to go and hear something that is unusual, but the security precautions they are taking are turning it essentially into an all-day affair… I just could care less right now.”

What was meant to be the hottest ticket in town isn’t proving to be an easy sell.

Organizer Christian Darbyshire yesterday said “400 or 500” tickets were still available from a total of 6,000.

A call to the ticket hotline confirmed that general admission tickets are still available at $229, but anyone willing to ask around can probably get their hands on discounted seats.

Doors open at 1 p.m. for the 3:30 p.m. event. Seating is first-come, first-served, and ticket holders have been warned to come early due to security measures. (It took two hours for guests at Mr. Bush’s first post-presidential talk in Calgary to clear security.)

For Mr. Bester, that’s just too much hassle for a show he suspects won’t have the fireworks he desires.

If Obama went to speak somewhere, the people would be out in force.  Confluence, step your game up. Stateof Disbelief, you are going to have to try harder if you are going to smear the President.

One Response to “Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are not a big deal, says people of Toronto…StateofDisbelief, your name fits you exactly…”

  1. Steve said

    Seriously, on May 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm Said:

    Steve! You won’t miss your head, it’s not like losing something you actually use.

    FACTS don’t lie. Far from being a troll, I use actual evidence.

    For instance, you are comparing 8 years of Clinton with 100 days of Obama. If you actually had the ability to move past ad-homs, someone might respect your argument.

    My point was simple. YOUR MEME of how great Clinton was is not universally believed.

    Plus, your “highest exiting pres” stat ONLY APPLIES to presidents that have served their term out. Our current pres has not and will have two terms to work on that.

    Clinton’s highest approval rating was 73% and his lowest was 36%

    http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

    During his first 100 days, he topped out at 52% on 4-17. Obama is at 60%. According to those surveyed, they would disagree with your premise and agree with mine and the REAL BIG DAWG Barry O!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

    He left with a 64% approval rating, and Obama has about 7 more years to find out…

    Its like “Why are you so mad?” when you are faced with facts and a person that doesn’t need to devolve into petty name calling? Me thinks because the facts do not bear you out.

    Don’t worry, I am cataloging all of this vitriol on my side, so I don’t need to see it posted, since the spirit of debate doesn’t strike you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: