|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Let's argue about Clinton
Bart, yesterday you wrote:
> Really, our only double winner in 66 years is the reason we're losing?
Assumes that most of your readers are Democrats;
but probably many of your readers are
too smart/have spines to be Democrats.
I'll bet many are Independents. Do a survey.
Assumes that "winning" is the goal, not governing.
Winning is important, but only as a means to an end.
If you "win" for the middle class, but sell them
out with NAFTA and employing Robert Rubin to give
Wall Street the Treasury, then "winning" twice
is not really something to brag about.
Unless YOU benefitted greatly from Clinton's
governance (I didn't benefit at all).
Yes, eight years of peace and prosperity are better
than Bush's death, war and depression.
To suggest otherwise makes me think your Clinton
hatred is Mariana Trench-deep.
Why do people who dislike the Clintons constantly
take their eyes off the ball?
I never said, "Clinton was God."
I said, conpared to every other president since
WWII, he was our best president.
That means it's incumbent on YOU to name a better
president, which you can't do
which means you agree with me (because I'm right)
but you just can't face the facts.
This is a no-win argument if you can't admit what you know is true.
Then you wrote:
> The Clinton haters prove how stupid they are every day.
If you read my email about the accuracy of the
500K children that died in Iraq as a result of sanctions,
you'll have to admit that we "Clinton Haters"
are not stupid. The Rethug Clinton Haters are though.
Maybe you should differentiate between the Progressive
"Clinton Haters" and the Rethug Clinton Naters,
even as it serves your purposes to lump we "Haters"
all together.
A. Why would a logical man hate the best president
of his time?
B. I missed that e-mail you speak of, but what
would it matter?
You have no choice but to
admit Clinton was the best, but you want perfection.
You want 1,000 of every 1,000
decisions to please you and that's never going to happen.
C. People who refuse to admit the facts might
deserve to be lumped together.
D. What's preventing you from admitting Clinton
did a better job that Carter, LBJ, JFK and Truman?
E. Like with the Davidians, it's not Clinton's
fault that some people are born into bad situations.
The alternative to sanctions
is war or
allowing Saddam unlimited money for his aggressive war machine.
Of the three available options,
which would President Neil choose?
Or is this another question
you'll have to ignore?
As you once said, we are on the same side (fundamentally,
we are decent, compassionate people),
but you shouldn't assume we share all the same
opinions, or the Clinton Lust.
Your silly "Clinton lust" crack tells me you're
still not willing to face the facts.
That tells me you can look at a thunderstorm
and say, "Nice day for a picnic."
You can't name a better president than Clinton,
yet you insist on classifying those who
recognize the facts in front of their face as
somehow "in lust" with our best recent president.
You are at war with the facts, not me.
Some of us are more objective, and not as swayed by celebrity.
There you go again, pretending.
You want people reading this to assume Bart is
some star-struck school girl staring at
a Jonas Brother when it's you who have failed
to make your case. I'm asking you to
name a better recent president and your reply
is "Clinton did some things wrong."
Having been fortunate to meet some very extraordinary
people,
even geniuses (not poker sharks) in my life,
I can tell the difference at my age (59).
Best, as always,
Neil in Maine
You imply that Clinton's "celebrity" has little
or no value.
Remember the 24 million jobs created under his
administration?
Do you think America would enjoy having 24 millions
jobs created today?
Do you think America would enjoy going back to
no wars and a stock market that tripled in value?
Do you think America would enjoy going back to
"Help
Wanted" signs in most store windows?
Neil, you're on the losing side of this argument.
I'm not demanding that you "lust" after Clinton, but please stop ignoring
the facts.
You can spew a litany of complaints against Clinton
but you can't name a better recent president.
If I were you, I'd change my position to something like,
"Granted, Clinton was our best recent president,
I'd give him a B+
but he could've gotten an A if he had
done X and Y differently."
Then you would sound credible on this subject.
And what was that "not poker shark" snippiness about?
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog