Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Clinton’s Latest

Bill Clinton spoke at the Kennedy library. Here is the Boston Globe story and the Reuters dispatch. Among other things, Clinton said that he thinks the 22nd Amendment should be changed because "people are living much longer." Disregarding the issue of whether or not the 22nd amendment should be changed or not (or clarified regarding the two consecutice term issue), this comment by Clinton is another indication of his tyrannic soul. I remember him saying back in December of 2000, when he only had but a few weeks left in the White House, how he loved being president and that he was going to try to sleep less while he was in office so it would seem as if he were president longer! That tendency on his part, loving the power and trappings of office, was the clearest intellectual indication (never mind some of his actions) of his tyrannic soul. And this is the guy that will not go away, who will--at least vicariously through his wife--try to become president again. No wonder some in the Democratic Party are claiming that he is sucking all the air out of the room. See John Fund on this issue, on the harm he has done to the Democrats, and how it is inevitable that he will continue to be in the limelight. He is still a newsmaker, but standing for no principle, still their best fundraiser, still full of himself, still full of charisma, but still tyrannic in every movement and with every breath. As Shakespeare has Pericles say: "’Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss." Pity the Democratic Party.

Discussions - 18 Comments

So much anti-Clinton rhetoric this week. Is that fear I smell coming from our Conservative friends?

No, it’s joy.

Yeah, joy that he’s not running again. Conservatives, for all of their denial, know that if Clinton were to run for President today, we’d have him back in a heartbeat.

"They bloody well did not pay." -- London Pub owner, Mike Bell

In the waning daze of his tenure as American President, Bill and wife Hillary, weary of shopping on London’s trendy Portobello Road, stopped in a pub and hoisted a few tankards with the locals.

They then promptly left without paying the tab.

When I heard the story it reminded me of Clinton’s legacy: He entered office with the Democrats in control of two of the three branches of government.

He left with his party in control of none.

You can keep your hearthrob and I’ll keep my "denial," thank you very much. The more it’s all Clintons all the time the much deeper in denial I’d like to get.

I like winning. Thanks. :)

London Pub story

That "hearthrob" reigned over 8 of the best years this country has ever seen. Where are we now? We live in mortal fear of being attacked by terrorists, the economy sucks balls, and we’re regarded as a military menace by most of the world.

Doesn’t sound like "winning" to me.

republicans are just a bunch of whiny crybabies when it comes to clinton.

The "First Bubba" ignored the al-queda threat, missed the chance to arrest bin-Laden. Was more worried about Waco wackoos then middle east terror. I believe we had a paper economy. Did we forget about the dot com mess? Didn’t Enron begin its meltdown under "Bubba’s" watch? As for the military; rather seem to be a menace than a cream puff. Did we forget Mogadishu?

that’s right blame 9/11 on clinton. its typical republican BS. the economy was fine until that moron bush got into office.

economy sucks balls

Come on, don’t you think that is a bit of an overstatement? It sounds like Clinton in 1992 saying that "we have the worst economy in 50 years". Sure it isn’t like 1998, but "sucks balls". Give me strength! This isn’t the 1970’s by any stretch of anyone’s imagination (except maybe your’s). Remember those: 19% interest rates, inflation and unemployment (a/k/a stagflation) and Jimmy Carter? The economy is cyclical.

yes the economy sucks balls. why don’t you try telling someone who’s been out of work for 18 months how great things are. maybe he/she will knock some sense into you when they punch you in the nose.

"why don’t you try telling someone who’s been out of work for 18 months how great things are."

Wouldn’t this be true during any president’s tenure in office? Even Clinton’s? I mean somebody somewhere is always frustrated like this.

"This isn’t the 1970’s by any stretch of anyone’s imagination (except maybe your’s). Remember those: 19% interest rates, inflation and unemployment (a/k/a stagflation) and Jimmy Carter?"

Hey, I voted for that guy Carter!

No kidding. Being a student of history I was keenly aware that Franklin Roosevelt was still faced with near 20% unemployment seven years into his tenure. With much of his New Deal in an ash heap, FDR turned his attention (just as historian Charles A. Beard had predicted a few years earlier) to foreign matters and war (which would later pull America out of the depression).

Approaching the 1980 election, I saw the tough talking Reagan as another FDR looking for a good conflict to pull America out of the Carter malaise. As history records, I was, duh, wrong, huh?

By 1984 I was turning in my Democrat card for a GOP one. Haven’t looked back since. :)

the difference is that there’s a lot more people who have been out of work for 18 months now than when clinton was president.

yes the economy sucks balls. why don’t you try telling someone who’s been out of work for 18 months how great things are. maybe he/she will knock some sense into you when they punch you in the nose.


Your comment shows that you aren’t a very serious person.

The comment that stated an unemployed person in the Clinton era would feel the same way is right on point. Applying your logic, then any person that is experiencing economic hardship means that it "sucks balls." You have a pretty rigid definition of "sucks balls."

As I said, the economy is cyclical and even if Clinton were allowed to run in 2000 and won, things probably wouldn’t have stayed the same as in the go-go late 1990’s. Perhaps more people would be unemployed and therefore willing to punch me in the nose.

You still haven’t addressed my point about it not be as bad as the 1970’s up until the 1982 when interest rates were stratospheric and unemploment was terrible. Certainly an argument based on the premise that something "isn’t as bad as..." isn’t the most ideal position but my point is that your comment about the economy sucking balls is a bit over the top. No?

the economy sucks balls. so does bush. and so do you.

Typical cowardly infantile leftist response.

Seems as if you got some type of fixation on using the term sucking balls. Perhaps you should troll some more seedy parts of the Internet instead of NoLeftTurns?

hmmm let me see. yup you still suck balls.

I saw "TR: An American Legend" taped from A&E and on it Clinton was saying how hard it was for TR to face the idea that he could lose the presidency in his race against Wilson and Taft. He explained "I am constitutionally barred from being President again..." but it must have been hard for TR. He completely misses the point that a gross mismanagement of the presidency brought him out of retirement and expressed it in terms of complete desire by Roosevelt to be president. This desire was sacrificed when he left office and declared he would never run for president again. For Clinton, it was said that he could have won the presidency again (by polls) but he did not only because he was "constitutionally barred from doing so. His equivocation is patently false in both this and the latest instance noted in the Boston Globe article. Clinton’s desire is based on the desire to rule and not to stand up for any principle. His principles are non-existent and his practice is destroying his party.

but at least he doesnt suck balls

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1912