There have been a lot of good articles in newsmagazines lately 
focusing on the current administration's leadership and style.
So what do you think? Is there a crisis of leadership at the top,
or is Clinton just getting bad press?  What about his impact on
the November Congressional elections?  Is he good, bad or
indifferent?

33 responses total.

        Hmmm... I'm thinking.... Don't let me interrupt the
flow and rush of conversation on this conference. Give me a minute.
Talk amongst yourselves.... :)
        I not only voted for Clinton, but I worked on his campaign
briefly during the primaries in the bitter cold of New hampshire.
A lot has happened since those heady days.... But I really think
that for the most part, Clinton has gotten a bad rap. I still
believe he has a lot of good ideas. Translating them into bills
that can pass or that are nationally popular...well, that's
a different story altogether. What d'ya think?

Do you vote for good ideas that never get implemented?  Or do you
vote for the person most likely to get good ideas (i.e. those you
agree with ;) implemented?  I'm sure you thought at election time
that Clinton's good ideas would pass Congress and good things would
result.  Would you vote for Clinton again knowing what you do now?

        Yep. Because I think Clinton --better than the paleo-liberal
crowd-- is trying to do precisely that: to steer a course close enough
to the middle to attract the votes required by our majoritarian system
of government, while nudging the country toward progressive reforms.

Middle?  Bwahahahahah!

May I say that Bill is really doing better than I thought he would.
I didn't vote for the guy because I thought that congress was
going to be able to push him around the way they did Carter.
Though I amy not agree with everything he has done
I have to admire the ability he has shown in compromising
and attempting to get things done.
(Truth is I'll still vote Perot next time, but that can
be argued in another item should anyone wish)

I'm still pissed about that retroactive tax increase.

I think my feeling about Clinton can best be summed up by how I dealt with
his election campaign.

1)  I printed up and sold bumper stickers which read:
        CLINTON GORE '92
        The Lesser Evil

2) I registered as a republican so I could vote in the republican primary.
This was solely so that I could cast two votes against George Bush in a single
race.

sheesh.

ok, needs to be said again: sheesh.

Clinton has done a heck of a lot more to actually cut the deficit
than either of his predecessors, despite much talk.  Doesn't get much
political credit for it, though, which means we can look forward to all
future candidates realizing deficit reduction is important to talk about
but not very valuable to actually do.

I wish he'd pushed campaign finance reform harder instead of health
care and NAFTA/GATT and the like, and there are plenty of things like
that I'd change.  But at least he never casually remarked that he
thinks my religious beliefs make me inelgible for citizenship of
the U.s.

I think Bill is the smartest most human and best president we've had at least
since JFK and possibly since FDR (I dont actually think that much of JFK).  He
has actually accomplished quit a lot so far, and he's kept more campaign
promises than any other politician I've ever heard of (except Zachary Taylor of
course). It is not his fault that congress and many of the american people are
so hostile that they never give him a chance.  I would think that the
republican's would like him better than most democrats because he is not at all
a liberal.  (and I should  know since I AM!)  I wish people would just look
around them rather than blindly  listening to what the press and the pols
blather.  Bill's health care plan was  brilliant, but most people never took
the time to read it and to really understand it.  As for the so-called tax
increase:  My taxes didn't go up.  My friends' taxes didn't go up.  If your
taxes did go up than in my opinion you were not paying enough before.  I am
sick to death of the way the republicans have screwed the middle class to help
the rich and I am glad that this time there was a little tax justice.  And no,
my tune won't change when my income goes.  If I ever make 100,000 in a year I 
expect them to tax the hell out of me too.  I will be able to afford it a lot
more  then some poor sap who makes 33 grand!

Man, they sure got you fooled.  Too bad. 

Oh, AJ!  Poor AJ...
(33G--poor sap?!  That's close to thrice what I make in a year...)

re 12:
That's exactly the point: if you make 12 grand you arn't taxed all that badly,
if you make 100 grand you (were) not taxed preportionally either.  But if you
make like in the 30's 40' and 50's (solid middle class), you get totally
whomped. That's not fair.  The rich should pay not only the most in dollars,
but the most percentage of their actuall incomes as well.

Question:  is the object to get to a point of perceived fairness,
or to actually raise more revenue.  Because, like it or not, the more
you tax those with high incomes, the more income gets sheltered, and the
less tax (proportionally) gets collected.  That's why I chuckle when
folks talk about raising taxes on "the rich" as if they'll sit there an
(whoops) and not change their strategies.
Actual tax revenues (amount of money coming in) rose after the Reagan
tax cuts.

What I would favor is making drugs legal, and taxing the hell out of 'em.
Same with cigarettes. I would think that'd bring in so much money that
income taxes could be greatly reduced.

        Pattie

I thought cigarettes were legal and had the hell taxed out of them
already...

re 14:
The Rich shelter exactly as much money as they can every year regardless of tax
rates I'm quite sure.  The reason that the Regan "tax cut" increased revenues
is that the net result was a tax increase on the middle class--who pay mostd8
of the taxes.

On Clinton - as a outsider (non-US) I have been surprised that Clinton
was chosen as the Presidential candidate and Gore as the running-mate and not
vice versa.  Perhaps only seeing things from a distance I have obtained
a distorted impression of the abilities of the two.

Some of us in the US are similarly puzzled. I prefer Gore to Clinton myself.

I think that Al may be a better manager than Bill, but Bill is by far better 
at communicating ideas.  (Gore's gettng better though, look at his performances
on the talk show circuit.)  Hey with any luck, Al will get to be Prez too!

        I would have a hard time voting Clinton again.  He's just too weak
on civil rights for my taste. With things like the passage of digital
telephony, talk of a national id card, and the assault weapons ban, I feel
Clinton doesn't respect peoples right to privacy and civil liberties.

I wasn't aware that Clinton was in favor of an ID card?  Where did you hear
that? And what is the problem with digital Telephony?  Too easy to tap? 
Again... not an Issue I've heard much about.  Arn't there benifits to digital
communications that could outweigh easier tapping (there are always encryption
methods you can  use too.)  As for the assult weapons ban, you'll get no
sympathy from me there. I am staunchly in favor of VERY VERY strict gun contol.
 Whey you guys say that  we are out to take away your hunting rifles, you are
being paranoid--I have no  interest in that.  But when you say we're out to
take away your handguns--you are darned right we are.  We don't need handguns
in the hands of citizens, and  I don't want them there.  Even thought most gun
owners do not commit crimes  with their guns, the available supply of guns
which are suitable for crimes  (ie. handguns and assult weapons, but not
hunting rifles) means that it is too easy and cheap for criminalso get them. 
Banning them wont take them away  from criminals, but it will make them harder
and more expensive for crimials to obtain.  

It is not a violation of your civil rights to protect the popultion from drive
by shootings with military-style assualt weapons.

what cicero said

Re #21:  Who would you vote for instead?  Clinton's civil rights record, 
while suboptimal, is better than Bush's or Reagans on most every major
area (except maybe RKBA, if you're a supporter of that, though remember
Bush also restricted assault weapons and Reagan plugged the Brady Bill.)
At least Clinton isn't pitching compulsory prayer in schools (pledge of
allegiance) or stuff of that genre.

  Give him time!

Until he does, I like Bill better than the other guys.

        I guess I want to keep the possibility open of owning assault weapons
in case some David Duke figure rises to powere, and frankly I don't see
Newt and Jesse Helms being that far away from Duke.
        
Re # 22  Clinton has brought up the idea of national id card under the guise
of controling illegal imigration several times.  This disturbs me not only
because of the Orwellian implications of a national id card, but also it's
racist overtones especialy in light of the recent law banning illegals
access to health care and schools in California.
        Digital telephony is not the digital communications infrastructure
(which will be here regardless of the govt) but rather a bill that was
recently passed that mandated that the govt has a "backdoor" into the
system so they can wiretap at will.

 Re # 24 I hear that Clinton just flip-floped and now he is endorsing
prayer schools.

I guess I'll vote Green or Libertarian in 96 I KNOW it's a throwaway, but
at least it's a throwaway I can stomach unlike the Republicans or Clinton.

 But a Dave Duke et. al would only rise to power via the democratic will of
the people, so your silly desire to have access to an 'assault weapon'
amounts to tyranny.

  "Racist overtones?"  What if I just decide that my son & I want to move
into your house?  We won't pay rent or anything, & we'll use your water,
heat & electricity (+ telephone).  IN the long run, you'll benefit out of
us being there, because maybe we'll patronize the closest liquor store
near you (after drinking whatever we find of yours, that is!), & supporting
local busuinesses certainly supports the community.
 

        You, being the understanding, non-Racist, etc. that you are will
simply work extra hours in order to subsidize us as we live in your home
(you'd better, because if you don't, we'll riot & loot you & your
neighbor's residences!), right?

   If you force Harley (my son) & I to riot & we get hurt, it is OK because
we'll just give the EMS, hospital, therapist, etc. your credit card to pay
all the expenses...

        If killing Nazi's makes one a tyrant, then I'm a tyrant, along with
the rest of the allied forces of WWII.  I will ignore the rest of your
Limbaugh wannabe racist rant.

 You leap to call them "nazi's" (unlike you, I don't bother to capitalize
the word...), but I remind you that in the example, whatever else they
may or MAY NOT be, they were democratically elected by the people of of
this nation.
 
    That's real nice that you hate nazis & want to shoot them, but it is
a major convolution of what I said in #28.   

        But I think your best action --barring a logical & relevent response--
would certainly be to just write me off as a 'ranting racist' & ignore 
#28 & #30...

What would your suggestion be, Raven, for dealing with the illegal 
immigrants in California (and other states)?

Do you think they should be defined to be legal, and given all the rights
of US citizens? Would anything less be racist?

I think they are illegally in the US, and the government is not doing its
job of returning them to the country they came from. Is this racist?

If they are allowed to stay in the US, I have a problem with denying them
basic services (including medical and schools), and the courts do, too.
This is why 187 in CA is in big trouble constitutionally.

There is some sort of problem with rewarding (with semi-citizenship)
those who are sufficiently lucky in breaking +big+ US laws.
  
If someone/group is running a sanctuary operation, that's one
thing I can support. But after that, illegal aliens need to 
be sent back, just as they have been for several decades.
  
If there were no public welfare at all, the immigrant problem
would be lessened. If all charity/welfare were exclusively
local (sted federal) that also would make the problem diminish.
  
But the gummint has decided to rip charity/welfare away from
the local level - and of course, the direct result is choas
and little effect on stopping aliens.
 
The harshest supporters of the Prop 187 are the perns who
DID come here +legally+! And that goes for Cubans as well
as Mexicans (and Haitians, and ......).
.

Immigration restrictions and restrictions of the benefits given to illegals
do not constitute a "race" issue unless those laws are applied unevenly.
As far as I know, the restrictions on legal immigration now are based on 
evidence of financial stability:  you're wealthy, you're welcome; you're poor,
you're SOL, go home!
It strikes me that these restrictions are in practice applied to a much greater
extent than perhaps they would be if done by the book.
Prop 187 is a race issue by context, and probably by subtext, but the word of 
the law prevents it from being a racist law.  There are quotas limiting the
number of people who may legally become residents of the U.S in a particular
year.  Does anyone reading this happen to know by what criteria those quotas
are established?  Is it so many Mexicans, so many Brits, so many Cambodians,
or is it just one number for everybody, or is it regional?
   Tim's analogy is very accurate, ugly as it sounds.  If we offer entitlements
to anybody who walks in the door, those of us who pay for it get less and less
return for the costs we pay, and not all of us can easily afford those costs
already!
        However, if we deny right of schooling and medicine to residents of ou
country, legal or no, we create an atmosphere ripe for intense social 
instability, and in the long run are damaging ourselves and our own cause.
 The only fair options are to cut ALL entitlements, clamp down heavily on
illegal immigration, or register everybody and only entitle those who are 
legal and registered.  I don't happen to enjoy the prospect of any of the
aforementioned options being taken.  

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss