Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow. I mean, wow. The right wing imagination truly knows no bounds, does it?
Now, what are the chances that two extremist white racists chose to work with Iraqi Muslim extremists?
|
Good point, because of course Nichols was such an extreme white racist that he chose, just for the fun of it, to vacation in the ever popular (hotbed of radical Islamic extremists) Phillipines. Very popular tourist locale for redneck midwesterners, no offence Hank.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
don't even think I'm willing to read a whole WSJ crackpot piece).
|
Well said. Stick with a paper with journalistic integrity. Like the NYTimes. Speaking of which, did you read Jayson Blair's piece today? Kudos. Indeed.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch I guess when the Repubs lost the ability to talk about the economy, fiscal prudence, and the strength of the military, they went to blow jobs and conspiracy theories. Plus announcing that all the people who registered their approval of Clinton (y'know, the guy who was more popular than Reagan at the end of his term) must be stupid. Y'all are starting to look like Berkeleyites after the Reagan reelection.
|
The economy of the 90s was built on the foundation of economic health that Reagan created after the Great Society almost destroyed us.
Fiscal prudence was at least in part due to the Republican congress. If Clinton had his way National Healthcare would have been the Great Society of its generation.
Strength of military was at least in part thanks to Reagan was rebuilding of the military in the 80s. The damage that Clinton did our intelligence capabilities due to his disdain for the CIA was far more damaging than anything he did for the military.
As for popularity, I would look to a more academic measure like a recent polling of 78 scholars in history, political science, and law rating the Presidents where an ideologically balanced ranking was sought by choosing scholars from both liberal and conservative ideological camps and asked them to rate each president on a one to five point scale.
In that study-Reagan was ranked 8th; Clinton 24th.
These rankings are part of the new bestseller, Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House", which also includes some interesting commentary on the Presidents.
Here a couple of excerpts:
Harvey Mansfield on Ronald Reagan: "In everything he was optimistic and radiated optimism: 'America's best days are ahead of her.' He was averse to gloom, malaise (in contrast to President Carter), and sacrifice, yet he demanded greatness from his country. He gave the impression that from the industry and generosity of Americans and from the spontaneous freedom of human nature, greatness would come easy."
Paul Johnson on Bill Clinton: "Most of Clinton's time and energy as president were spent not on policy or executive activity but in defending himself against accusations....This had one outstanding virtue. It turned the Clinton years into one of the longest periods of laissez-faire in U.S. history. If Clinton had been a continent man, and so with time to be an activist president, the consequences would almost certainly have been disastrous for the American economy. As it was, with the president busy elsewhere, the nation thrived mightily, as always when the White House does nothing."
Indeed.
