Mike Broadbent/ Daily Texan Staff
Mark McCaig, a Texas A&M finance sophomore, protests former President Bill Clinton's speaking engagement outside the Frank Erwin Center Wednesday night.
Posted on 02/15/2003 12:15:04 AM PST by HAL9000
Former President Bill Clinton's appearance in Austin on Wednesday met with fervent opposition from area conservative Republicans, who staged a protest outside the Frank Erwin Center.Members of the Young Conserv-atives of Texas, the Williamson County Republican Party and the FreeRepublic.com online forum held up signs amid a crowd waiting to hear the former president speak. Their posters focused on what they considered Clinton's political misdeeds with slogans such as "Remember Elian?" and "The Price is Right: A 'free' speech from Bill Clinton."
"He shouldn't come to Texas," said David Rushing, a protester and a law student from Southern Methodist University. "Texas has never voted for him, and he isn't welcome here."
On behalf of the participants, protest organizer Brendan Steinh-auser said he believes the former president ruined America, blaming Clinton for allowing nuclear proliferation in North Korea and causing the Sept. 11 attacks by foregoing an offer by the Sudanese government for Osama bin Laden's extradition.
Gwen Hodges, a self-described former liberal and UT alumna, returned to campus to stand with signs supporting President Bush and the Republican Party.
"If Bill Clinton were a Republican, he would have resigned instead of sitting through the impeachment trial," Hodges said. "We [Republicans] are the type of people that if we mess up, we step aside from the leadership role."
But the protest spawned intense conversation between Republican supporters and citizens. While the protesters declared support for President Bush and his case for military action in Iraq, they denounced Clinton for compromising national security. Thor Harris, a passer-by and Austin resident, stood up for the liberal and left-wing arguments.
"You know why 9/11 happened?" Harris said. "Because of the Texas oilmen in the Middle East. There are innocent people there who are going to die. You want more 9/11s? Bomb Iraq."
A Republican protester yelled back, "I wouldn't give a piss about 100 of their people over ours. I'm concerned about Americans and American security."
Startled spectators moved away from the altercation but continued cheering for the side they supported.
Steinhauser criticized what he considers the liberal slant of the UT campus.
"Liberal views are a criterion for the faculty and students on this campus," he said.
While most students agree that the campus is relatively liberal compared to the rest of Texas, few deny the conservative presence.
"This is Texas," said Tanuja Parachuri, a business freshman. "There are always going to be a lot of Republicans."
Mark McCaig, a Texas A&M finance sophomore, protests former President Bill Clinton's speaking engagement outside the Frank Erwin Center Wednesday night.
One of my old favorite game shows!
Glad to see that someone is giving that assclown hell.
I'll bite. How did Reagan disgrace himself?
Can I guess and say "Iran/Contra"? Do you want to explain how a bad policy idea is the equivalent to perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice?
Uh oh, you're asking him to "think" for himself....and actually "reason" through this process. We could have a meltdown situation here.
Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans Protest France's Foot Dragging
North testified that the Iran/Contra scheme was orchestrated by himself and Poindexter who both kept Reagan out of the loop because of the questionable legality of it. Reagan testified that he didn't recall anything about it. The liberals all claimed he was lying but, within a short time, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's so it's very plausible that he really did not recall anything. It can't be proven one way or the other.
Now, if you want to expand "mess up", I suppose you could include his sending troops to Beirut and the tax increase that was suppose to be tied into budget cuts. Congress didn't live up to their end of the agreement and deficits followed.
Were any of these things so disgraceful as to suggest Reagan should have left office?
Contrast this with the scandal of using the Oval Office to conduct trysts with an intern (technically, a boss taking sexual advantages with an employee), then lying about it under oath and encouraging Bettie Currie to both hide evidence and testify that no such thing happened. He essentially admitted he had lied or, in his Clintonian way, saying he was "less than helpful" because he disliked those who investigated him.
While the scandal might not have gone to the heart of governing, it did show a willful disregard for fundamentals of the law, and forced Congress to halt other business in order to spend several months on impeachment proceedings.
If we want to expand "mess up", then under Clinton's record we should include Waco (he ducked responsibility for that one, just as you claim Reagan did with Iran/Contra), illegal White House fundraisers, the sale of long-range missile technology to China, the agreement that allowed North Korea to acquire materials to build their own nukes, refusing to have Osama bin Laden arrested when the Somalis offered him to us, and the failed attempt at nationalized health care.
One might also be tempted to include the tax increase on Social Security recipients and the Elian Gonzalez raid but, to his credit, these things worked exactly as he intended them to so it is hard to consider them a "mess up". Reprehensible, yes, but not a mistake of any sort.
Rather than turning to Ronald Reagan, a better contrast to Clinton's dishonor would be Bob Livingston's resignation when he was about to become House Speaker over charges of marital infidelity, and Newt Gingrich's affair with a staffer which explained why he seemed unwilling to pursue some of Clinton's scandals when his voice was truly needed.
Amen to that. How conveniently the Clintonista's (want to) forget.......and pass the buck to Reagan, Bush or anyone else that seems handy enough to blame. Don't forget about the trail of dead bodies from Arkansas to Washington, the horrible financial economy Clinton left the Arkansas constituents in, the drugs, etc., etc., etc. Shameful, disgraceful and ZERO dignity.
My economics professor stated that it takes about 6-8 years for the economy to feel the effects of economic adjustments made during a typical administration ... so Clinton enjoyed (and took credit for) all the Reagan economic policies. We are just now feeling the tip of the iceberg...so to speak, of what Clinton instituted. Ain't it grand? He sold us down the river.
The back of my Texas aTm diploma says I can only venture into Austin city limits for 2 purposes... to pick up lotto winnings and to watch the Fighting Farmers take on the t-sips every other year. I definately would have sought an exemption from God if I'd known the Klinton-freak was speaking in hippy lovin', tree huggin', granola eatin' auSTAIN - I would have loved to do some venting.
Trajan88; TAMU Class of '88, Law Hall (May it R.I.P) Ramp 9 Mule, f.u.p.
Please respond to Tall_Texan's post #17. I'm curious about your view of the Clinton scandals.
If we are to believe that Reagan disgraced himself (as you suggest), and should have stepped down, what, in your opinion, should have been done to Clinton?
Voluntarily removing oneself from office is quite different from impeachment. Should Clinton have stepped aside to spare the country the trauma of impeachment?
To the best of my recollection, the most memorable event of Clinton's final two years in office was his delivery of a million dollar missile to a ten dollar tent. What would have been lost if he would have resigned?
By *that* point, late in his second term, I would agree that a case could be made for Reagan's resignation, not from disgrace but from his diminishing mental acumen that eventually led to full-blown Alzheimer's, a condition we know far more about now than we did in 1987, even though we've made little progress in treating or preventing it.
But I'm not sure how such a thing could be diagnosed and who would make the decision if and when it was time to go based on that. If he had resigned, the only difference is you would have had George Bush I that much earlier.
Reagan was savaged in the media for his "hands off" management style and famously took interest more in the results of his policies, letting others work out the details. It would be hypocritical to then accuse him, with no proof to the contrary, of being intimately involved in Iran/Contra and lying about it under oath. When he said he didn't know, I would take him at his word because he had not demonstrated a history of lying.
Clinton, OTOH, boasted of having a memory "like a laser" who famously micromanaged the government he controlled and yet he amazingly forgets if he was ever in a hotel room with Paula Jones, claimed he couldn't recall giving any gifts to Monica Lewinsky, claimed he never told Bettie Currie what to tell investigators about those gifts, etc.
He's on tape with Gennifer Flowers before he was elected president explaining his "deny, deny, deny" strategy to avoiding trouble. He denied he had sexual relations with "that woman", when he clearly did. He denied having an affair with Gennifer Flowers which he later concedes under oath that he did. He demonstrates a continual pattern of lying, both to the American people and under oath.
Wouldn't you agree that someone like that is more unfit to be President of the United States, to hold his finger on the nuclear button, to commit young men and young women to battle, than a forgetful old man?
An honest man surrounds himself with people that can steer the ship of state during moments of incapacity. This was true after Reagan was recovering from the assassination attempt. A dishonest man surrounds himself with people who will perpetuate his lies until they become no more capable of leadership than he is. Which is the more dangerous threat?
I think we have our answer when we look at Saddam Hussein. Both he and Clinton have a naked lust for power which stands defiant against every attempt to remove him from power, forcing his nation into chaos for the sake of one man's ego. In America, we have a recurring transition of power and that is the only thing that prevents us from being in Iraq's shoes today, led by a despotic autocratic tyrant.
In summation, Reagan had done nothing to prompt a resignation in disgrace. Clinton's eight year term was little but a disgrace. He was fortunate to have arrived in history at the same time as the "dotcom" economic boom, else he would likely have gone down to defeat in 1996 had the GOP ran a better opponent than a tired, withered retread.
How about Suzanne Coleman, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Wiley ... and many more ... rape, assault, sexual predation. Cover up, extortion, threats -- all those too. Who did kill Wiley's cat? It just didn't one day decide to hang itself on her porch, you know!
Clinton has a practise of using his security detail as pimps, as procurers too ... to pick up and deliver women to him. Is that a fine and dandy "perk of office" to you?
Remember Paula Jones? She was pilloried, mocked by the highest levels, by the zillions of "allies" in the mass media -- why? A little women crushed by the monster -- She was just a low-level state clerk, who had the misfortune of having "Il Duce" cast his eye on her. Next thing -- Uniformed Arkansas State Troopers take her up to the Clinton's Hotel Room for a nooner. Well, oh gosh, she refuses! Remember -- as soon as the door closed, he "whipped it out" -- "kiss it, baby"! And moreover she is bothered enough by it -- as any person should be -- she tells. Why refusing and Telling is the biggest of no-no's, eh? That's what would be gathered from Clinton's defenders.
No of course, if you were called up, or your wife, why gee-willikers, you or your wife would have dropped right down on your knees before the Master Man of Our Republic and humbly polished his specter, wouldn't you?
You go and look into these matters, yourself. The truth IS there. Denials are an easy ticket, and many will sell it to you. Nice and comforting, denial is. It's no short trip to the truth and many confusions and uncomfortable things are found on-route. But -- you are a smart kid, eh?
You sound like one of the proud Clinton Haters who was there that nightly, loudly ushering the herd into the Erwin Center. "Follow him to the plantation! The Master is calling you..." And, like sheep, they did.
LMAO! Excellent!
Another thing I would have liked is to have spelled "scepter" correctly -- as in nearly all of my posts I drop and misplace letters and words in the rush to get the response out... I'm am learning two very important things from Mr. Bush, Dubya -- (1) give bad men enough rope and they'll hang themselves, nearly every time -- (2) have the patience to give that first a chance to occur. Maybe I can stay me fingers from being so hasty in replies.
Anyway, here's a Merimam-Webster dictionary entry:
Main Entry: 1scep·terThe Royal SHAFT, in it's street, profane meaning, seems to be what many fools are yet still willing to get from Mr. Clinton! It was here, on the great freeman's ship of Free Republic, James Robinson, Captian and Proprieter, than we all found refuge from that shafting, and proud of being able to give it back, from our many able and quick hands in full broadside!
Pronunciation: 'sep-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sceptre, from Middle French ceptre, from Latin sceptrum, from Greek skEptron staff, scepter, from skEptesthai to prop oneself -- more at SHAFT
Date: 14th century
1 : a staff or baton borne by a sovereign as an emblem of authority
2 : royal or imperial authority : SOVEREIGNTY
We WILL have him stayed, flayed, and filleted --- in time!
Former President Bill Clinton's appearance in Austin on Wednesday met with fervent opposition from area conservative Republicans, who staged a protest outside the Frank Erwin Center.Members of the Young Conserv-atives of Texas, the Williamson County Republican Party and the FreeRepublic.com online forum held up signs amid a crowd waiting to hear the former president speak. Their posters focused on what they considered Clinton's political misdeeds with slogans such as "Remember Elian?" and "The Price is Right: A 'free' speech from Bill Clinton."
< snip >
"This is Texas," said Tanuja Parachuri, a business freshman. "There are always going to be a lot of Republicans."
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
No, you don't HAVE to be a Texan to get on this list!
But the protest spawned intense conversation between Republican supporters and citizens. While the protesters declared support for President Bush and his case for military action in Iraq, they denounced Clinton for compromising national security. Thor Harris, a passer-by and Austin resident, stood up for the liberal and left-wing arguments."You know why 9/11 happened?" Harris said. "Because of the Texas oilmen in the Middle East. There are innocent people there who are going to die. You want more 9/11s? Bomb Iraq."
"A presidential executive order issued during the Clinton
administration hamstrung the FBI so badly that bureau
lawyers decided it would be illegal to infiltrate Osama bin
Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a senior
FBI official during the Clinton administration said Saturday."
(June 1, 2002)
____________________
The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
Well I just thought it was another Yankee euphemism or something... Ya know, Monica was kissing his specter, Doubter and his wife were-- ahfergiddaboudit...
Now on the other side of the balance -- a festering pile of stinking acids, eating their way through the scale's weigh plate as we speak -- the words of the Black Prince, himself, William Kelley Blythe Jefferson Clinton, a convicted and notorious liar and perjurer.
Hmmmm ... just who, just who, just who, should we believe?
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.
