Skip to comments.The Clinton Legacy vs The Reagan Legacy
Posted on 07/08/2006 11:34:03 PM PDT by Cato Uticensis
I remember 1989 and 2001. I remember how in 2001 Bill Clinton was scrambling around like some great booby trying to find his legacy. Ronald Reagan, a humble man, let his legacy speak for itself in 1989. That year the Berlin Wall came down and Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania tasted freedom after decades of bitter Soviet occupation.
After the better part of a year trying to convince us how great he was for us, we still only remembered Bill Clinton for his romp with Monica Lewinsky. One might argue that that was all he deserved to be remembered for. I used to agree. The Lewinsky Scandal makes Clinton look like a mere buffoon, like Governor LaPetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" who made it to the White House. But he really deserves to be remembered for his truly most serpentine action, the Chinagate Scandal. John Huang, DNC fundraiser extraordinaire and Red Chinese Agent, sold access to President Clinton in return for donations to the DNC, his '96 presidential campaign and his legal defense fund for the various cases brought about by his sexual harassment. Clinton also sold military technology. That included missile technology. In 1992 the Red Chinese didn't have a missile that could hit Japan with any accuracy. By 2000 they could threaten Los Angeles. And guess who supplied North Korea with the missile technology with which it is currently threatening the Pacific Basin? You guessed it, China.
Not only that. It was the Clinton Administration that negotiated with North Korea back in 1994 the last time it sought nuclear weapons. He gave them some of our uclear technology as well as some fissionable material in return for their sweet promise not to build bombs with it. Any fool who would believe such a promise was never fit to be president. And now we face the danger of North Korean missiles. This is Clinton's legacy.
On the other side of history stood Ronald Reagan. He made the decision as president that we would stand up to the USSR. He asserted that the Soviet Evil Empire could be beaten and forced to relinquish the territory it enslaved. Liberal Democrats laughed at the idea. They saw their Soviet brothers as sophisticated and loved them. They saw Reaganite Republicans from Middle America as cruel bumpkins and despised them.
Reagan said we could build a missile defense shield and thereby negate Soviet nuclear weapon technology. Liberals mocked the idea all the way. They opposed SDI. Much to the regret of the USSR, nobody listened to them. Both Gorby and Anatoly Dobrynin (the man who negotiated for the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis) said that SDI did their cause in (both said so in interviews they gave on the History Channel). Liberal "geniuses" got especially snarky, acting like they were so smart and anyone who didnt see it their way was so dumb. And after being wrong about nearly everything since their love affair with Joseph Stalin, they still act that way. In any event Reagan took on the Communists and the rest is history.
Two legacies are casting their shadow over America today. Bill Clinton's, represented by the missiles North Korea is firing at us and Ronald Reagan's, represented by the missile defense shield rising to protect us. We should honor them both in the manner they deserve.
Clinton legacy is a blue dress. And that legacy is, indeed, pretty enduring.
I was reminded of this when I was in a record store the other day. They have tons of political propganda there, and among it was a book or something with a cover showing Clinton, W and Cheney, and under their names and caricatures the title "The Good (Clinton), the Bad (Bush) and the Ugly (Cheney)".
I tried so hard to figure out what rock-listening libs could consider so "good" about Clinton. I looked around at the customers (I'm 40, and wasn't the oldest person in the place), and wondered what, exactly, the serious and honest ones among them could consider GOOD about Bill Clinton.
I STILL can't figure it out. I'm not looking for jokes or sarcasm, I'm looking for what serious libs think was good about the Clinton presidency.
he fought for abortion!
But that's not really something liberals bring up when I've discussed this issue with them--it was just kind of THERE, you know? Abortion as a political issue laid low during the nineties, and I've yet to hear a lib tell me abortion is one of the issues that made Clinton a great president. (Although when columnists have to write Clinton-praising columns, they ruminate for awhile and abortion comes up.)
No, you're right. But they'll couch that as "womens' rights." He was such a great champion of that, don't you know! The Left is masterful at Orwellian euphemisms.
More than once I've told one of these liberal women "You just like Clinton because you think he's cute." Try it sometime--the reactions are interesting.
Oh believe me, I never let the feminazis sweep their hypocrisy under the rug, claiming to be there for women, while destroying the lives of Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderrick in defense of their molester. As I stated a few weeks ago on the Republic of Utica, had Mary Jo Kopechne somehow floated to the surface at Chappaquidick and been revived, the feminists no doubt would have destryed her life too.
Feminists are forever bemoaning how women are "attacking" each other, and yet they can't even admit they aren't for "equality for women" but for equality for LIBERAL women.
If Condi Rice were a liberal, working for a democrat, we'd all be sick of the nonstop coverage of her, the fawning over her. When I saw Mad Albright's new book about "religion in government" or whatever, I just had to laugh; if Rice put out such a book, she'd be attacked 24/7.
Hillary could argue that it helped keep abortion, "safe, legal and rare." So it's easy to see how liberals think Bill Clinton helped the cause.
As well I do.
"If Condi Rice were a liberal, working for a democrat, we'd all be sick of the nonstop coverage of her..."
My feminazi sister-in-law HATES Condi. I say "how can you hate this extremely successful, PHD, multi-lingual, concert pianist, etc. etc. She's everything you should love?"
All I get is a stare. Unbelievable.
"My feminazi sister-in-law HATES Condi. I say "how can you hate this extremely successful, PHD, multi-lingual, concert pianist, etc. etc. She's everything you should love?"
All I get is a stare. Unbelievable."
What I really hate is when lily white Liberals, most of whom don't even know any black people, call her things like "house nigger." The Birmingham church bombing of 1963 killed four little girls, her good friends. I think I'd punch a Lib who said such a thing in front of me.
I hear you. Infuriating.
Another reason: he CAAAAAARRRRRRREES, don't ya know.
China gets our missle technology,North Korea gets our nuclear technology and we the people beside getting the largest tax increase in US history get the famous phrase "it depends what the definition of is....is".No question Bill Clinton's a giant,as to a giant what? you fill in the blank !!!
Don't forget their howling like stuck pigs over the Persing missle deployment in Europe. That was going to start WWIII vs the clinton cruise missle attacks..ah the ones outside the oval office.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Anyone with the sense of a pissant KNOWS what kind of president Clintoon was and what a corrupt administration he had....but there are those with no sense at all that will believe anything the lamestream media, the Hollywood left, the liberal minded, and the leaders of all the oppressed countries around the world tell them......hey, this guy was a good President. It's that segment of our society that believe this crap and even sadder......they vote!
I see the remedy in getting their voting rights reviewed for the reason of mental incompetency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.