Though many books have been written about WJClinton, many don't get the proper exposure in the MSM because WJC isn't a Republican nor a Christian. If he was either, the NYTimes would be running exposes on him, ad nauseum. Clinton did and continues to get a 'pass' by the media because he's all they've got. Clinton is the only Democrat, post-Dhimmi Carter, that they can point to and say, "Look. We're not so bad. Clinton was wonderful!"
Sadly, the facts say otherwise. Let's start off in 1992 with some stats about the elections. Clinton's cheerleaders love to say that he was swept into office on a mandate. That is not true. If Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have lost. Perot garnered 19% of the popular vote and that was just enough for WJC to squeak by. Dukakis got 45%, WJC got 43.9% of the popular vote.
People started to wake up to WJC's policies after getting into the Oval Office. The Democrats started to get run out of town after WJC's socialism-lite started to spread like a cancer throughout the land. Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton: (2000 analysis)
* GOP seats gained in House after Clinton became president: 48
* GOP seats gained in Senate after Clinton became president: 8
* GOP governorships gained after Clinton became president: 11
* GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998
* State legislatures taken over by GOP after Clinton became president: 9
* Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998 Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3
* According to the 2000 exits polls:
* 60% of voters disapproved of Clinton as a person
* 59% -including some who approved of him - disliked him
* 68% said he would go down in the history books for his scandals rather than for his leadership
* 44% thought the Clinton scandals were important or somewhat important. (In contrast, only 28% thought Bush's drunk driving arrest was important or somewhat important)
* 18% said a reason for their vote was to oppose Clinton
Clinton's ineptitude, his empty rhetoric and his "legacy" of scandals started to catch up to him by 1994. That is why we had a Republican Revolution in 1994, just 2 years after Clinton entered office. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990.As of November 2000 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controlled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Clinton is noteworthy for quite a few things. As far as presidents go, he was a ground-breaker. Here are some highlights of WJC 'firsts':
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
Go to http://prorev.com/missingclinton.htm for a complete accounting of Clinton's history.
I stand by my words: Clinton was a disaster for the American people. He weakened our military, ignored or did nothing effective about terrorist operations against US targets overseas, and was more concerned about his legacy than anything else. He sold nuclear and military secrets to China. Go to http://prorev.com/china.htm for a full disclosure of WJC's China connections.
As far as the economy was concerned, WJC benefited from Reagan's tax cuts and 4 years of Bush-41. He let Greenspan work his magic and stayed out of the way. He didn't go much in an active role in as much as he passively just let things take its course.
|Clinton's economic record, it has to be said, is pretty good. Not, to be sure, as good as the conventional wisdom would have it: A recovery from the brief recession of the early 1990s was already underway when Clinton was elected, and his tax increase of 1993 was followed by a few years of subpar growth. But Clinton deserves credit for promoting free trade, allowing Alan Greenspan to vanquish inflation, and acceding to Republican demands for a reduction in the capital-gains tax. The combination of these policies more than compensated for the tax hike. Hillary Rodham Clinton should take a bow, too. Her rigidity doomed the administration's health-care plan and thus was a boon for the economy.|
Clinton's biggest contribution to the economy was not to do much to screw it up. This is not the faint praise it sounds like: It is a boast that could not be made by most recent presidents, including Republicans Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Bush.
National Review - 2000
In my book, Clinton was the consummate smarmy, greasy politician. He conducted himself in a disgraceful manner and led from what his pollsters said would be popular. Clinton's legacy will be that he was a shallow, vapid human being and an even shallower president. And for him to stand there and wag his finger at the world while whining about a 'vast rightwing conspiracy" as the cause of all of his problems was an insult to the office and an insult to the American people.
We deserved better than to have 8 years of this type of person in office.