Last try. In response to a post regarding Clinton’s popularity, you said
Funny you should mention his popularity. Here’s a little survey for you…Willy wasn’t as popular as you think he was
I asked what the leadership survey had to do with popularity. You threw a bunch of text at me. You then changed the subject to “presidential effectiveness”. How about “The survey stuff I posted has nothing to do with popularity. Sorry for changing the subject.” Or are you emulating the White House and are unwilling to admit to error?
From the review:
"Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton’s much awaited new autobiography “My Life” more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words “In closing . . .”
The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.
In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton’s presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration.
This is a poll on “popularity” of the recent Presidents. As anyone can see, Clinton and Reagan had realtively equal approval ratings, until the last two years of each respective term, where Clinton was clearly more popular. Interestingly, both Bushes had very high rankings at some point, that fell off. Like father, like son.
Ken, I wouldn’t bet on getting an admission of mistake.
“What’s it like to go through life with so much hate? Go for a run and let the endorphin buzz set you free.”
Not sure to whom you’re addressing this, but it’s a cheap cop-out to say that anyone who doesn’t praise Clinton (or the Dimocrat point of view) is somehow consumed with hate.
I don’t hate Bill Clinton, nor even the Dimocrat Party. I just find it amusing that there were enough suckers born in the last half century that these guys get voted into office, even after some have committed major crimes. I also laugh at people who purchase biographies of celebreties. Like Bill Clinton’s life (or Michael Jackson’s or Jennifer Lopez’s or any other empty suit’s) would be all that interesting or informative. In Clinton’s case, what is there to tell that hasn’t been told over and over already?
I’d rather read books about people who lived extroardinary lives and accomplised great things: Tesla, Ghandi, Lombardi, Rockne, Dave Scott, Glenn Cunningham… people like that.
The BEST politicians are scum. Why would I want to read about scum?
“Presidential effectiveness cannot be measured solely by popularity.”
Popuiarity is in no way connected to effectiveness. A lot of people liked Jimmy Peanut, but he was easily the least effective president in the history of the galaxy.
“Clinton is/was a good guy to hang around with… But by all accounts he was a ‘mediocre’ president.”
Interesting ratings. As commentators have suggested, Bush I and Bush II’s ratings were both in that danger area for incumbents; i.e., start looking for a new gig.
It’s interesting how history has treated Reagan. Many don’t recall the low ratings he was getting, especially during Iran-Contra, several proxy wars, and when there began to be a sense that he wasn’t all there anymore. Conservatives have done a yeoman’s job rehabilitating his image, somewhat at the cost of fact, but that’s politics, I guess.
For a guy who claims to believe nothing until verified, you seem to be quite amenable to quoting reviews of books you haven’t read. And given that last I recalled, you had no direct interaction with Mr. Clinton, you seem to offer all sorts of negative opinions, without evidence. Or is in your world evidence deemed truth when in line with your worldview? Or is just when the O’Reillys, Hannitys or Limbaughs say it to be so?
“I asked what the leadership survey had to do with popularity.”
Leadership has nothing to do with popularity. Clinton was popular, but was led, didn’t lead. He made all his decisions after reading the polls and consulting with Carvel.
"You threw a bunch of text at me. You then changed the subject to ‘presidential effectiveness’. How about “The survey stuff I posted has nothing to do with popularity.”
Better yet, how about "effectiveness is a reasonable attempt to measure a president’s performance, popularity isn’t even close.
“Or are you emulating the White House and are unwilling to admit to error?”
Interesting ratings. As commentators have suggested, Bush I and Bush II’s ratings were both in that danger area for incumbents; i.e., start looking for a new gig.
It’s interesting how history has treated Reagan. Many don’t recall the low ratings he was getting, especially during Iran-Contra, several proxy wars, and when there began to be a sense that he wasn’t all there anymore. Conservatives have done a yeoman’s job rehabilitating his image, somewhat at the cost of fact, but that’s politics, I guess.
Yes, the revisionists are working hard. Despite the unsupported conclusions I see posted here and elsewhere, I’d put Clinton’s record up against that of Reagan or either Bush any day of the week.
“For a guy who claims to believe nothing until verified, you seem to be quite amenable to quoting reviews of books you haven’t read.”
Didn’t say I believed it, although I do. I was just passing it along. I find Bill Clinton uninteresting. Wouldn’t read his book if I was being paid to review it. I find the assertions in that review believable, because they jibe with what I know about Clinton.
“And given that last I recalled, you had no direct interaction with Mr. Clinton, you seem to offer all sorts of negative opinions, without evidence.”
You may have missed this, but Clinton was pres of the US for eight years. Makes you feel like you know a little bit about him, but maybe that’s just me…
“Or is in your world evidence deemed truth when in line with your worldview?”
What evidence, and what worldview?
“Or is just when the O’Reillys, Hannitys or Limbaughs say it to be so?”
I love when you make a comment that brands you as conservatives, and dickheads like JGS or whatever his initials are suddenly call you a dittohead. In case you missed that thread, I’ve heard Rush’s show a few times, but don’t listen regularly. I’ve probably heard an hour’s worth in the last two years. Same for Hannity, whom I consider a lemming, and I think O’Reilly is a gasbag who makes conservatives look bad.
my original comment was actually in reply to the rip on WH Taft - the man really did have the first bathtub installed, so don’t say he never did anything!
as for the other topic, obviously, some people are still obsessed with it - as for me, I generally don’t concern myself with the appendages of other men
You don’t think there’s anything wrong with the president, on the clock, committing adultery, getting a hummer in the white house and then lying about it?
I think alot of people care. They cared enough to impeach him.
How do you know he was “on the clock”? Is there a timeclock for the President to punch?
Who says Presidents can’t have sex in the White House? They live there, you know - if a President DIDN’T have sex in the White House, now THAT would be a serious problem - for him, at least. I’d agree that a study near the oval office might not be the best location, but your supposed “outrage” is a bit over the top.
As for him “committing adultery,” yes, I agree that that is wrong. But it’s really not any of your concern, or mine. Regarding his lying about it - well, it is an open question whether he “lied” or not, given the definitions at the deposition. I agree that he was deceptive, and that is wrong - but again, why was it anyone’s concern?
Are you familiar with the Arkansas Project and Richard Mellon-Scaife, and their actions, starting long before the Lewinsky affair, to bring down President Clinton? Did you support that effort? Those factors are what led to the partisan-Republican impeachment. The only people who cared are partisans who wanted to bring down Clinton, no matter what reason they needed, and those ignorant enough to take the bait hook, line and sinker. Most people “outraged” by Clinton’s conduct and moral failings haven’t a clue of the concerted, well-financed effort to bring him down - and would be more outraged at THAT more than Clinton himself. IMHO, history will show President Clinton, despite his obvious moral failings, to be head and shoulders above those who sought to bring him down.
When you are president of the United States, there is no “time clock.” You’re on duty 24/7. Every breath you take from the time you take your oath, to the time the next oath is “on the clock.” There is no back up. There is no vacation. Sorry, it comes with the job. So Presidents don’t have sex for 4 or 8 years? They don’t pee? They don’t eat? You’re not serious, are you???
Also as president, you respect the duty of office. You represent the people of the United States of America. Your actions should reflect such. It is my business because I’m a citizen of the United States. Whether the president is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or not affiliated with any party, I don’t care…you uphold and act like a president… So what did you think of Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife? Or Henry Hyde? Or Livingston? Are just as outraged by their cheating behavior?
Lying under oath to Congress is an undisputed fact. He had the opportunity to say “it’s none of your business…I didn’t break any laws” but he didn’t. He freely answered the question and lied in the process. I could’ve lived with that answer as well…but that wasn’t the case.** I agree, he should have said “it’s none of your business.” But he didn’t “freely” answer any questions - he was under investiagtion and fighting a baseless lawsuit!** **** AND you didn’t answer my question - Are you familiar with the Arkansas Project and Richard Mellon-Scaife? Did you support their actions?
