Skip to comments.Why the yearning for Clinton era?
Posted on 10/28/2010 8:24:07 AM PDT by Graybeard58
According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey, former President Bill Clinton, who left office in January 2001 with approval ratings in the 60s, enjoys a 55 percent favorability rating. This same survey found President Obama only has a 47 percent favorability rating.
Several theories have been put forward as to why a former president who has been out of office nearly 10 years is more popular than the present occupant of the Oval Office.
Among them is the thought that the memory of the Clinton years, marked by low unemployment, budget surpluses and a relatively placid international scene, has become an especially pleasant one for citizens in these troubled times, boosting the former president's reputation. Indeed, a common button at Clinton-attended rallies reads, "I miss peace, prosperity and Clinton."
Take a closer look at the prosperity part.
Mr. Clinton, who took office in January 1993, boasts he presided over the longest period of economic expansion in American history .
According to the Cambridge, Mass.-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), however, the longest period of economic expansion in American history began in March 1991, under the administration of President George H.W. Bush, whom Mr. Clinton defeated in 1992 by claiming he presided over "the worst economy in 50 years," according to Time magazine. (Ironically, in 2009, Mr. Clinton praised Mr. Bush as one of America's great leaders.) In late 2000, before Mr. Clinton exited the White House, Time reported months of market signals indicated the economic expansion was near its end. Indeed, according to the NBER, the longest period of economic expansion ended in March 2001, two months after Mr. Clinton left Washington for Chappaqua, N.Y., and three months before his successor George W. Bush had signed his first significant piece of economic legislation.
Continuing with Mr. Clinton's less-than-magic economic touch, Steven Holmes of The New York Times reported Sept. 30, 1999, that in an effort to "increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders." This fool-hardy decision by Fannie Mae, which extended "home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans," was made under pressure from Mr. Clinton's administration. The rest is history.
As for the argument the Clinton years were a peaceful time, a close look reveals they were marked by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1993 slaughter of 18 U.S. troops in Somalia, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. troops, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people (12 of them Americans), and the 2000 bombing in Yemen of the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors.
While it is true Mr. Clinton's administration presided over the apprehension of several suspects in these cases and allocated billions of dollars for anti-terrorism efforts, the attacks were never forcefully responded to. This failure arguably prevented a message being sent to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that terrorism against the United States would not be tolerated, setting the stage for 9/11.
In the spring of 2001, the younger Mr. Bush rejected an approach of responding to individual terrorist attacks in favor of one emphasizing the total elimination of al-Qaida, reported Time's Michael Elliott in August 2002. This was confirmed in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's final report. (Archaic bureaucratic structure prevented such a plan from being presented to the president until it was too late.)
So, why do so many Americans pine for Mr. Clinton?
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
“Clinton era” = Republican Congress.
“WE!” Are not. The largely Gay Mainstream Media is. It was the “Glory Days” for them.
They tried to portray Clinton as JFK II, but it didn’t work. They DID portray Obama as President Bartlett from “the West Wing”, and now we see what a disaster that was.
In order to achieve the same benefit under the current administration in the White House and Congress, we have to use the nuclear option (which always gives me such a headache — I hate when I have to really, really suck it up and focus my attention enough to make things explode). It literally makes me feel bad. Much better to be reasonable.
I would take years 94-96 of Clinton over anything else since Reagan.
The Republicans were in charge of congress for the first time in 40 years. they were ACTUALLY BALANCING THE BUDGET!!
HilLIARy was slapped into submission with her disastrous health care fiasco.
And this was before the democrats turned into RINO’s to win elections.
Easy..the attention span of the American electorate is about 6 months..and Clinton ain’t Obama
Pubs controlled both the House and the Senate during most of the Toon years and they were able to thwart him on his health care....
Clinton squandered the peace dividend left him by Ronaldus Magnus and nutured and preserved by Bush I.
Clinton and Obozo have a lot in common.
Both have financial inroads into the Chinese Communist government.
Both had fathers who had neglected to marry their mothers.
Both were Marxists whether their supporters want to acknowledge the fact or not!
True. Presidents tend to get credit for prosperity and there was a level of so called “prosperity” with Clinton, yet it was not due entirely (or maybe not even mostly) to him. The Republic congress played an essential role.
Bill’s got chicks.
All guys want chicks, LOL
Health care was "thwarted" in 1994 -- by a Democrat majority Congress that refused to bring it to the floor for a vote.
The Republican tsunami came afterward, in November.
I was thinking more along the lines of ‘at least Bill Clinton didn’t call us the ‘enemy’ and tell his supporters to behave accordingly.
Make no mistake about it, we are in a battle.
Any ethnic group out there who thinks they have enemies in the Republican party had better take a hard look in the mirror. They'll find their enemy there.
of=Off. Oy! I quit.
What a crude psyop. Let's see, primary colors slathered on with a 2x4... this rock-level of "subtlety" proves it - Hillary's running again.
Why the yearning? Because compared to Obozo, Clinton looks like Ronald freakin’ Reagan!
Ten years ago they were younger, had fewer wrinkles and not as many lbs around their mid-section.
No one asked me. I might pine for many things, but Bubba certainly isn't one of them.
Gearing the public up for Hillary’s 2012 presidential run.
Thanks for the ping Graybeard. I think the real reason people do, and they DO yearn for the Clinton era is because of BS. People are susceptible to BS, because they really don’t pay attention unless something directly inconveniences their personal lives.
While Clinton was busy screwing up the works, nothing inconvenienced the masses as has happened with Obama. The economy being Clinton’s luck thanks to his predecessors, and a Republican Congress, and the economy being Obama’s bad luck thanks to his Democrat Congress, and his Democrat predecessors, and the exact wrong focus of his attentions.
Obama has thrown one Socialist Monkey Wrench after another into the personal lives of every American, and every Freedom loving person elsewhere in the World as well, and deserves the failure he gained by his efforts.
I called this months ago. The Clintons have the dirt on Soetoro; I don’t doubt it in the least. We’ll never know this, but, I speculate that a deal was made between the Clintons and Soetoro: Hillary! wouldn’t challenge Soetoro’s primary “victories”, and Obama would be the nominee (and presumptive winner after 8 years of GWB). Throw in Joe “Where’s my brain?” Biden as a lame duck VP and that leads to:
Obama gets health care passed (using methods the Clintons either didn’t think of or dare try back then) and essentially loses any hope in getting re-elected in doing it. So health care gets passed, ~18 years after the Clintons failed to do it. Which leads to:
The Rats get blown out next week. Hillary! as SOS resigns (so she has, at least in theory, experience in both domestic and foreign affairs) and starts readying for a 2012 run. Soetoro (and Biden) bow out for a 2012 run as Soetoro blames the racist core of America and the Tea Party specifically as the reason he won’t run again, and “enthusiastically” backs Hillary!, in an attempt to keep the blacks from revolting against the party. Which leads to:
Can Hillary! win in 2012? Well, Bill ran successfully against a GOP Congress in 1996, so it comes down to how stupid the typical American voter is. Based on Clinton getting elected twice (albeit with less than 50% of the vote) and Soetoro getting elected in 2008, the stupidity level is high. And yes, she could very well win, as people will look at the 1995-2000 time period as blissful, with a GOP Congress and Rat president named “Clinton”. I can hear the Fleetwood Mac tunes warming up.
“Ten years ago they were younger, had fewer wrinkles and not as many lbs around their mid-section.”
Strange, ten years ago I was younger, had about the same wrinkles, weighed less but had a lot more fat around my mid-section.