Clinton = Great Republican

from PolMach Forums
One of the biggest betrayals I have felt in the democratic party was the term of Bill Clinton. I don't understand how it is he was able to pass conservative bills and not be held accountable for them. What amazes me even more is how conservatives say he was a very liberal President. I'll sight a few accomplishments to help prove my point.

1) NAFTA
This treaty was the most harmful international legislation to change Mexico, the USA and Canada for the worse. First off, thousands of workers lost their jobs in the United States. In areas such as Michigan, factory workers were laid off since corporations could get cheaper labor south of the border. A candidate who claimed to be pro-labor turned his back on those who supported him. Secondly Mexico lost as well. The PRI administration tried its hardest to re-write its constitution so it could sell land owed to its citizens, to greedy corporations. Another party that claimed to be a leftest party turned its back. Many farmers in Chiapas lost their land and ignited a revolution that continues to this day. Corporate companies built factories where workers are paid less than a dolar with horrible working conditions. Major stores such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and so on have left Mexican based stores in ruins. Tijuana looks a lot more like Los Angeles than it did 10 years ago. The loss of jobs has increased the flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States. NAFTA is never talked about when addressing the issue of "illegal" immigration. The corporate news outlets demonize Mexicans saying they came out like bandits with NAFTA, which is an obvious and conceded lie.

2) Soft Money
Liberal Presidents are not supposed to collect more money than their Republican counter-part, but that's what Clinton did when he ran against Bob Dole. Clinton never raised the issue of Soft Money, he embraced it. If Democrats are so anti-corporate, then why have they accepted so much money from them. AT&T should put their seal on the Donkey's ass.

3) Minority Rights
First black President? What exactly did he do to deserve that title? Affirmative Action was killed while he was president. Minorities in general were worse off during the time Clinton was President. Their poverty rates rose and it is harder for a person of color to go to school now than it was in 1991 under Bush Sr..

4) Wellfare Reform
Why did President Clinton push for this? The "Working out of welfare" program is a complete failure. He allowed the so called "liberal" media to demonize the public into believing there was an epidemic of single black mothers "abusing" the welfare program. Not only did he not try to stop conservatives from doing this, he joined them! The real welfare robbers are the greedy corporations who get tax breaks, bailouts and enormous and myriad subsidies. Corporate welfare programs take away from public investments. When 1 in 5 children live in poverty, the corporate powers focus instead on what Kerry did in Vietnam instead why it is there is a poverty problem.

5) War Time President
If the war in Iraq was so bad for Dems now, why was Clinton given a free pass? I don't know if this is still right, but there were more casualties from Clinton ordering bombings than Bush Sr. had in Iraq. On top of that Clinton did nothing to stop the embargos put on Iraq or Cuba.

These were a few things I could think of on top of my head. I feel that the Democratic party has taken huge leaps towards the right and it is not good. What is the point of voting when there are little differences between the candidates running? If you disagree feel free to say so and why.
politics
7,284 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Incredibly substantive and wonderfully done RATM4EVA. I often think that the reason liberals and dems felt so comfortable in voting for him was because he gave Rush Limbaugh something to spit about. There also seemed to be a belief that Clinton felt as they did despite the policies passed while he was in the white house. He was successful because he was so moderate (I don't know if that is quite apt, but...).

I personally feel that it is wrong for either of the parties to betray their base and go so close to the center. People keep voting these representatives in, however. I think it's disgusting, but the mainstream vote is truly to blame, people are responding to candidates that run less on issues and more on general popularity. Then there are those that do no thinking for themselves and only go with the straight ticket for one party or the other. No wonder we aren't getting anything done in this country...

It would be very interesting to see what happened if all candidates got equal time and if we could see what the Green, Independent, Constitutional, Socialist, and and whatever else parties had to offer. Maybe then we'd see some new ideas and shake those in power a bit to make them run lean and efficiently again. I'm no fan of the Communist party, but maybe they'd get the dem.'s off their butt and running. Perhaps if the Libertarians were there, Republicans would return to their core issues or transform themselves into some other party.

What are the problems? Apathy and a system that is failing to work (i.e., parties not representing the interests of their constituents).
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
The two party system is part of the problem. I know there are conservatives who can't stand McCain as there are liberals who can't stand Lieberman. In a winner-take-all system, manny voters are left choosing a candidate they don't feel strong about. What's John Kerry's strongest appeal to progressives? It's that he is not George W. Bush.

Politicians need millions of dollars just to stand a chance of winning. This means holding fund raisers and appealing to their interests. The media controls public opinion which forces politicians to surrender to them and use their money for campaigns. The average Joe can't go up to the President and ask him what he's doing for health care, since he doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on an ellection.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Politicians need millions of dollars just to stand a chance of winning. This means holding fund raisers and appealing to their interests. The media controls public opinion which forces politicians to surrender to them and use their money for campaigns. The average Joe can't go up to the President and ask him what he's doing for health care, since he doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on an ellection.

That's why it would be so interesting if, instead "of the people" (and corporations) contributing to campaigns, the government foot a particular low tab to insure all registered party candidates were assured of the same equal time. The major networks would also be forced to donate time for the candidates ad's. This would limit smear campaigns and force the candidates to speak about real issues and introduce their policies. Something along these lines would change the face of politics as we know it and possibly even eliminate voter apathy. I would consider a program like this a success if it was found that 60% of registered voters were voting within a time span of two presidential terms ( 8 years).

What do you think?
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
It would be a great idea for campaigns to be state funded, but it would probably never happen, as Wellstone proposed when he was senator. Both parties make out like bandits as it is. They use the "free speech" excuse, but at thousands of dollars a plate at a fundraiser it is hardly free. Also, I don't know how Americans would react to politics this way. 60% would be a God-Send. We live in a society where citizens are excluded from politics. To George Bush, the term "activist" is used with a negative connotation. Corporations would still find a way to influence elections.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
To call Bill Clinton a republican is to insult patriotic Republicans everywhere.
Just call him an elitist, lying, philandering, POS and skip the political labels.
He was a democrat or the party wouldn't have nominated him in the name of the party.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
It's not an insult to the thousands that have been laid off, or the millions that don't vote because their opinions aren't voiced.

NAFTA and Welfare reform were introduced by Reagan and Bush Sr., but it was Clinton that actually did those things.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry, SSG, I see your point but the policies are what they are. Candidates should be labeled by their actions, as politician talk is rarely fact.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
You can't really argue with these points I put up, especially the one on NAFTA. Bill Clinton passing NAFTA would be like Bush signing gay marriage into law.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Literally CLinton was a "New Democrat" which meant he thought like a northern Republican of yesteryear--ever hear of Nelson Rockefeller?