Althouse: "Once upon a time there was a Democratic president who, despite his faults, championed the power of markets, technology, and the global economy."

July 7, 2012

"Once upon a time there was a Democratic president who, despite his faults, championed the power of markets, technology, and the global economy."

"He spoke about building 'a bridge to the 21st century.' He ratified major trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO. He supported balanced budgets and signed into law a tough welfare reform. He cut the capital gains tax. He boasted that government spending as a share of the economy fell on his watch. He went so far as to call himself (privately) an Eisenhower Republican."

Bill!

45 comments:

Kirby Olson said...: And then there was Monica, and the problem of the definition of definitions!; 7/7/12, 8:40 PM
yashu said...: Interestingly, Obama is now blaming not just the Bush administration for our economic ills, but Clinton's administration as well:

"We’ve got to deal with what’s been happening over the last decade, the last 15 years."; 7/7/12, 8:42 PM
Michael K said...: Bill was capable of learning, especially after 1994. Hillary and Barack Hussein are not. She would be no better as president than Obama.; 7/7/12, 9:10 PM
Scott said...: Can you imagine, if Bill could have kept his dick in his pants, we might have had a generation of moderate Democrats as presidents.; 7/7/12, 9:11 PM
Robert Cook said...: What do you think we have now?; 7/7/12, 9:14 PM
Scott said...: Obama is not a moderate Democrat.; 7/7/12, 9:19 PM
pm317 said...: Well, well, what do you know? Billy Crystal wants the old Bill back.

@Yashu, Obama has done that all along. Instead of saying Bush's 8 years, he has always included Bill's years too -- did that during the primary 2008 and has continued to do that whenever he feels like rubbing it in about the Clintons.; 7/7/12, 9:20 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/7/12, 9:26 PM
mesquito said...: Bill Clinto was wily, a sort of political genius and whip-smart to boot.

Obama is a garden-variety American leftist, of moderate intelligence and far more insular than most of his ideological breed.

This fact about Obama was clear to me in 2008.; 7/7/12, 9:26 PM
edutcher said...: Christ, what drivel!!

Let's not forget subprime mortgages, Whitewater, Elian Gonzales, muffing the Sudanese wanting to hand over bin Laden, sweeping EnRon and DotCom under the rug, cutting the military by 40% in the name of the Peace Dividend, and firing off damned near our entire inventory of cruise missiles in an effort to stop Saddam from building weapons of mass destruction in the name of diverting attention from L'Affaire Monica.

Michael K said...

Bill was capable of learning, especially after 1994. Hillary and Barack Hussein are not. She would be no better as president than Obama.

Like Hell. From 1995 - 1999, the President of the United States was Dick Morris.

Look at what happened the last two years of the Administration - Willie governed (if that's the word) the same way he did the first two. Morris gave Willie a deal for the middle four - if he wanted to stay in the White House and out of jail, he would do what Morris told him.

Willie's the same petulant, predatory, narcissistic sociopath he always was.; 7/7/12, 9:30 PM
Tim said...: Robert Cook said...

"What do you think we have now?"

An affirmative action hire to read the nation's Tele-Prompter?

The biggest deficit spender in the history of the US?

Someone who lied about "shovel-ready" jobs?

Someone who lied about the effect of his $.789 trillion "stimulus" bill?

Someone who de facto nationalized the nation's health care systems?

Someone who lied about the ability of Americans "to keep their health insurance if they like it"?

Someone who promised to close GITMO within six months?

Someone with a kill list in the Oval office?

Someone who promised to balance the budget?

Someone with no previous executive experience of any kind?

Someone with no notable legislative accomplishment of any kind?

Someone with no notable legal scholarship of any kind?

Someone who was the least experienced candidate ever nominated by a major political party for the office of president?

Feel free to point out which, if any, of these are wrong.

And when you, please explain why.; 7/7/12, 9:35 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I was around during the Clinton years. "Building a bridge to the 21st century" was a campaign slogan, a hack-written idiocy to beat the only candidate left to beat, by a man who never got a majority vote.

That Clinton got taxes, welfare-reform, and balanced budgets forced down his throat. He was a swallower, though, so he didn't mind.

He advocated trade. Farmers like trade. He liked votes. He'll be remembered.; 7/7/12, 9:38 PM
edutcher said...: As the one who left the War on Terror to George W Bush.

Which was the best thing that could have happened.; 7/7/12, 9:46 PM
Paul said...: Nixon lied but nobody died.
Bill lied but nobody died.
Obama lied and hundreds died... in Mexico.

Say what you want about Monica and Watergate, but they don't hold a candle to Fast&Furious.

And what is Obama? Socialist? Closet Communist? No.. he is just a snob narcissist professor who has been over his head for almost 4 years at a job that does not take kindly to such.

I doubt he will win re-election.; 7/7/12, 10:01 PM
Bender said...: He was also a notorious liar, who twisted facts and sycophants engaged in never-ending spin and distortion, even long before he pondered that eternal question of what the meaning of the word "is" is, a legal-political precedent so jarring that even chief justices of the United States have no qualms about engaging in such Clintonian liguistic gymnastics to get what he wants.; 7/7/12, 10:28 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Obama is not a moderate Democrat."

You may be right; he may be a conservative Democrat.; 7/7/12, 10:59 PM
Robert Cook said...: "As the one who left the War on Terror to George W Bush.

"Which was the best thing that could have happened."

You're obviously insane.; 7/7/12, 11:02 PM
jeff said...: "You're obviously insane.". Says someone calling Obama a conservative democrats. Clinton might have forgotten all those things were forced on him by a republican congress. OTOH, once the republican congress got a republican president they turned into what they replaced. Sounds like a great reason for a divided government. Which makes me wonder if the republicans learned their lesson from the last time, assuming Romney wins and the republicans take the house and senate. (hint, doubtful). Which means, once again......which way do we screwed the least.; 7/7/12, 11:44 PM
Sprezzatura said...: It's good that ed is still waving the WJC-hater flag. Any con that would give up this former hatred can't be trusted today. At some point in the future they could just as easily abandon their current POVs.

But, Cook is undoubtedly correct that ed is misfiring on at least one cylinder. A couple trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead or seriously injured
Americans was too high of a price to pay so that W could show is daddy how a real man deals w/ Saddam.; 7/8/12, 12:02 AM
Michael K said...: "Willie's the same petulant, predatory, narcissistic sociopath he always was."

Yes, but he learned.

The GOP Congress lost their way after 1996 but the tea party will keep them honest. Hopefully.; 7/8/12, 12:59 AM
Alex said...: A couple trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead or seriously injured
Americans was too high of a price to pay so that W could show is daddy how a real man deals w/ Saddam.

anyone who keeps asserting this crap is batshit insane.; 7/8/12, 3:11 AM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/8/12, 5:16 AM
jr565 said...: "We’ve got to deal with what’s been happening over the last decade, the last 15 years."

Funny, considering the dems used Clinton as an an example of positive economics when running against Bush. Which is understandable, since he's one of the few dems that actually has a grasp of markets and growth policies. But a Bill Clinton coming out today would never gain the traction he got when he ran, because the dems have swung so far left that he would be considered a champion of the 1% in the pocket of the stock market were he to run today.; 7/8/12, 5:16 AM
jr565 said...: You may be right; he may be a conservative Democrat.
Puh-lease.; 7/8/12, 5:18 AM
edutcher said...: Robert Cook said...

As the one who left the War on Terror to George W Bush.

Which was the best thing that could have happened.

You're obviously insane.

This from someone for whom Barry Ozero isn't sufficiently small c communist enough.

But, then, Cook always wanted us to lose.

Michael K said...

Willie's the same petulant, predatory, narcissistic sociopath he always was.

Yes, but he learned.

Not according to Morris.

As I say, the last 2 years of his Administration prove otherwise.; 7/8/12, 5:18 AM
jr565 said...: Cooke, what you are identifying as Obama's "conservative" bonafides, are in fact Obama's failure as a leftist, and the failure of leftists politics in general. TO you conservative equals "bad", and because Obama is doing badly, he's "conservative".
Just because his policies suck balls, and just because he's a completely innefectual leader doesn't mean that he isn't a liberal.; 7/8/12, 5:22 AM
Curious George said...: The only thing Eisenhower about Clinton is they both liked homely women and both appreciated cigars.; 7/8/12, 5:46 AM
Roger J. said...: future historians will make their judgments on the Clinton administration--most of us will be dead so what does it matter.; 7/8/12, 5:52 AM
DEEBEE said...: If only he did not have a zipper malfunction.; 7/8/12, 6:50 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Cooke, what you are identifying as Obama's "conservative" bonafides, are in fact Obama's failure as a leftist, and the failure of leftists politics in general. TO you conservative equals 'bad,' and because Obama is doing badly, he's 'conservative."
Just because his policies suck balls, and just because he's a completely innefectual leader doesn't mean that he isn't a liberal."

jr565...your "analysis" is spot off.; 7/8/12, 7:21 AM
Cedarford said...: Keep in mind that the last President that strongly believed the US must have policies that protect US workers, our US job base, and a solid trade balance - or our wealth and future would be pissed away - was Richard Nixon.

The cancers of globalization, technology and job transfer, mass illegal immigration, brainless free trade - that wrecked the US industrial base and skilled worker productivity level - that gave us our wealth - were all cancers that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Both Bushs cheered and went along with.

The cancer became obvious under Bush, while he fixated only on neocon nation building and a few thousand "Evildoers" that killed a few thousand while he lost millions of good jobs to China and borrowed trillions for wars that hardly helped the US bottom line.

Obama has only worsened matters.

In that long line of betrayal of the American worker to the international bankers that gave Carter, Reagan, Bushies, Clinton,and so on the political co-opting bucks.
So they could trot out and extoll on "miracle high tech replacing old manufacturing". "free trade for Freedom Lovers", and the "Great New Age of Globalization for a rising tide that lifts all boats" BS Bill Clinton spouted.

In that path to destruction, yes, Reagan and Clinton did some good things...but they fed the cancer.; 7/8/12, 8:27 AM
Cedarford said...: edutcher said...
As the one who left the War on Terror to George W Bush.

Which was the best thing that could have happened.

====================
While the cancer of US financial and jobs destruction proceeded (began by his predecessors following Nixon)...Bush ignored that to chase a few thousand Islamoids that started a war with a very low casualty attack (as wars go, consider the losses at outsets of REAL MAJOR clashes between peoples). Then further neglected the looming economic firestorm to go with trillion-dollar nation-building adventures to nation build the Noble Freedom Lovers of Bush's "Religion of Peace".

In hindsight, it is almost a pity the Islamoids did not have more planes to take out more Wall Street Bankers, derivative hedge fund houses, pols of both parties that sold out US workers to the banks, illegal immigrant lobbies, China/Saudi/Israel lobbies - back in 2001.; 7/8/12, 8:39 AM
cubanbob said...: pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
It's good that ed is still waving the WJC-hater flag. Any con that would give up this former hatred can't be trusted today. At some point in the future they could just as easily abandon their current POVs.

But, Cook is undoubtedly correct that ed is misfiring on at least one cylinder. A couple trillion dollars and tens of thousands of dead or seriously injured
Americans was too high of a price to pay so that W could show is daddy how a real man deals w/ Saddam.

7/8/12 12:02 AM

Compared to LBJ's wars, Vietnam and on Poverty, chump change. Clinton bequeathed Bush Bin Laden. He could have prevented 9/11 but didn't. And Bush, was foolish enough to believe Clinton and Clinton's CIA director about Saddam's WMD's. Still it may well turn out that Clinton for once wasn't lying about the WMD's after all. It appears that the Russians several weeks prior to the invasion organized several huge truck convoys from Iraq to Syria containing the WMD's. If the current regime in Syria collapses and the WMD's are 'discovered' then are you going to apologize to Bush? The Israeli's who certainly have a lot more to lose than the US over this definitely believe the WMD's are in Syria. Maybe they know something you don't.

RC you may get your wish. Obama may well get reelected and possibly pick up both houses of congress. But unless the democrats find an infinite supply of free money to float the economy by 2016 the country will be so ruined that the democrats will then be reduced to being a regional party when they finally get the boot. We are now at the 41st month with unemployment over 8% and the trend line isn't improving. So far nothing the democrats have done has worked and there is no reason to believe it will work.; 7/8/12, 8:48 AM
Phil 314 said...: Everything else aside, the Clinton/Bush comparison emphasizes that character matters.; 7/8/12, 8:49 AM
Paco Wové said...: "TO you conservative equals 'bad,' and because Obama is doing badly, he's 'conservative.""

I think you misunderstand R.Cook's views. He doesn't fit into the standard "left:right:middle-of-road" model that gets used for mainstream American politics; he's not even on the shoulders, or the grassy verge of the road. He's in a Jetsons-like hovercar, floating on a different plane entirely.; 7/8/12, 8:54 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cooke wrote:
jr565...your "analysis" is spot off.
Considering your communist leanings lets take anything you say with a HUGE grain of salt. I would argue that Obama is to the right of you personally. That doesn't make him a righty though. THat just means you are so far to the left that lefties look centrist to you.
And, aren't you a little to old to still identify as communist?; 7/8/12, 9:11 AM
jr565 said...: Cedarford wrote:
In hindsight, it is almost a pity the Islamoids did not have more planes to take out more Wall Street Bankers, derivative hedge fund houses, pols of both parties that sold out US workers to the banks, illegal immigrant lobbies, China/Saudi/Israel lobbies - back in 2001.

F*ck off.; 7/8/12, 9:14 AM
madAsHell said...: Bill is working on his legacy.

I also think that he senses a leadership problem for the Democrats, and he wants to fix it. I think this helps explain his comment about Romney's stellar business career. He completely destroyed the issue as an Obama campaign message.

He thinks Obama should be fetching him a cup of coffee, and that Obama would probably fuck that up as well.; 7/8/12, 9:26 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I never thought in 2001, when Bill and Hillary left the White House with a lot of the silver, and millions in pardon money, that I might look back at their reign with any amount of nostalgia. Bill may have been a sexual predator, and Hillary a venal money grubber, but he, at least, was not all that ideological, and could learn. Well, not to keep it in his pants, but politically.

But we now have had most of 4 years with Obama, and see how much worse it can get. Obama is not, apparently, a sexual predator, and the Obamas don't appear to have Hillary's greed and venality. BUT, the combination of socialist liberation ideology combined with Chicago style politics practiced by an intellectually lazy faux academic is far worse.

He has staffed his Administration with political thugs and ideological zealots, with lack of real competence at the highest levels seemingly the one commonality. We have a commerce secretary who drives a Lexus, an energy secretary who doesn't drive a car at all, an attorney general who would be indicted for lying, except that the US Attorneys all work for him, an HHS secretary banned from Communion because of her advocacy for abortion, a Homeland Security secretary who won't return to the state she used to govern without heavy security, a Secretary of State whose major accomplishment has been to return power to an organization the US identifies as a terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, in several key countries, etc.; 7/8/12, 9:28 AM
Cedarford said...: Bruce Hayden said...
I never thought in 2001, when Bill and Hillary left the White House with a lot of the silver, and millions in pardon money, that I might look back at their reign with any amount of nostalgia.
===============
Consider that two bad Presidents that just sat back and let the sparks of economic destruction placed by Reagan, Clinton et al become a raging blaze that followed Clinton - and you can understand a nogistalia developing.
Just as Reagan was better than Carter, even in the eyes of most moderate Democrats....Clinton was better than "The American Churchill" or "The Golfer in Chief".; 7/8/12, 9:50 AM
test said...: Let's recall the everything good about Bill is Clinton 2.0. His first instinct was to take over healthcare and call welfare reformers racist, just like every other leftist. His only honest deviation from orthodoxy was NAFTA, and that was a relatively low priority. If he were paired with with the hard left congress Obama had and the results would be similar if not worse.; 7/8/12, 10:20 AM
test said...: "I think you misunderstand R.Cook's views."

I think the bigger problem is that R.Cook misunderstands R. Cook's views. He thinks the left is against corporate power and authoritarianism.; 7/8/12, 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh, Bill! I liked his economic program and worked on his campaign. I had middle class tax cuts dancing in front of my eyes. Then I went to the CPA to have my taxes done the following spring. My very Republican CPA laughed when I said I was looking forward to those same tax cuts. "Didn't you get the memo? He had to take them back." Monica could not have been more crushed.; 7/8/12, 10:34 AM
Saint Croix said...: This cracks me up, when a party starts doing revisionist history.

Liberals hated Reagan. Just hated him. Ranted all the time about him. Now they love him. "Oh Reagan, he was great. Ronald Reagan wouldn't find a home in the Republican party today." What?!

And right-wingers hated Clinton. Just hated the bastard. I think we tried to impeach him. Now we're all, "Oh yeah, Bill Clinton, I miss that guy. Free trade, balanced budgets, no welfare."

I actually think Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to free trade, balanced budgets and no welfare. But still, this Clinton nostalgia from the right is kinda hilarious.

What about the interns? You're throwing the interns under the bus! Our daughters! Who's going to protect our daughters?!

You know he's got a wife, right? You know he's going to circle around again, right? It's a cage match and they're a fucking tag team. Hello! He's not dead! Wait for him to die before you say nice things!; 7/8/12, 4:08 PM
test said...: "I actually think Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to free trade, balanced budgets and no welfare."

This was not true of NAFTA, although it was certainly true of the remainder.; 7/8/12, 4:38 PM