There's Backwards and there's . . .
BurkeWords
There's Backwards and there's . . .
My favorite excuse by Clinton apologists goes something like this:
"He didn't do it. And even if he did, there's no proof
that he did it, which is the same as if he didn't do it. And if there
is proof, that doesn't mean anything because Starr leaked it. And if
Starr didn't leak it, that doesn't matter because everybody does it.
...except Bill Clinton. He didn't do it."
That's right, they argue that it isn't that he's done something that nobody else has ever done before. They argue that everybody has done it, but he hasn't. So we basically agree that's he's not like everybody else.
But there's another spin that the apologists use that's even dumber than this poor excuse above. I call it a spin because it's certainly no excuse. In fact, it's a thinly-veiled admission of guilt covered with a blanket of "so what?"
I'm glad you asked. I'll tell you so what. The line is that his personal life isn't important, that what he has done for the country is. Well, that's half right. In my last issue,
The Economy:
What about the economy? What did Clinton have to do with it other than re-appointed Alan Greenspan back to his position as Federal Reserve Board Chairman. Greenspan has had his finger on the pulse of this economy and deserves far more credit than Clinton does on the matter.
When I think of Clinton and the economy, what comes to mind? How about the dozen of so interest rate hikes within a single year? If you were looking to buy a house at that time, you'd find that the size of the mortgage you could carry would shrink as you looked for your new home. However, Clinton and comrades only like to talk about how low the interest rates are now ... after the GOP took over Congress.
The Balanced Budget:
Okay, first thing's first. It isn't balanced yet. Clinton's proposed budget counts on a lot of cigarette smoke and mirrors that might not appear.
Second, he couldn't have done it without the GOP Congress and Dick Morris. Clinton and the Democrats were ready to spend, spend, spend. If the Democrats take back Congress, they'll be ready to spend again and, to quote Al Gore, "blow a hole in the deficit".
The President's already started. He proposes that every penny of the surplus go to save Social Security. He is. of course, referring to whatever surplus there will be after he takes out $150 million for his own programs. Mr. President, please tell the American people, why are you spending money that you said should go to save Social Security?
World Peace:
During Clinton's term, the world has been at peace. Yet we're still paying wartime tax rates. Go back and check -- the only time taxes were ever as high as they are now was when we were at war.
But let's not overlook his foreign affairs record. (I'm referring to dealings with other countries, not dating European supermodels.)
Let's Face Facts:
Clinton was, and is, a lightweight. He got the nod after all the first-stringers decided to sit out a showdown with Bush. (And that include Al Gore who must have been hitting himself with a hammer when he saw the results). He was such a lightweight that the Democratic party that they could push him around and tell him what to do. They hadn't counted on Hillary.
In the end, everything that matters that Clinton has accomplished has happened with a GOP Congress, and he's even managed to take credit for a lot of it. But nothing would have gotten done if the Democrats had remained in power. Well, not nothing. I shudder to think what they might have accomplished.
Note: the following represents actual correspondence I received
earlier in the week. Some of it repeats and reasserts positions stated
above. I repeat it verbatim, except the email addresses have been
removed.
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:13:39 -0500
Dear Mr. Burke,
When an employer hires someone, the employee becomes a problem when
he/she is not doing the job. Clinton has done a better job than any in
a long time. Who cares about his sex life but you and a few others who
can't stand the fact that they were wrong when they thought he would be
bad for this country? So, you desperately look for any thread to
grasp... anything for the mice to try to bring the lion down. He
wouldn't be the first president to womanize, if that is what
he's up to. If most or all of them did, what's the fuss about? If I
put a private investigator on you, I bet I could find plenty!
Only an abuse of power or criminal actions should be the focus of an
independent counsel's investigation. And that waste of my tax dollars
on years of pursuing Hillary... Puh...LEASE!!! It's not
Clinton I want fired. Get rid of those partisan idiots wasting our
money. Would I fire him if he is found to have lied about sleeping with
anyone? It's none of anybody's damn business.
All the politicians going after him are using the same faults they
are guilty of as an excuse. It's just business as usual...playing the
game. I wish they could use the excuse of being useful. I certainly
don't agree with all of the President's policies, but he's the best bet
America's had in a long time. As for him trying to please everybody,
that's what he is supposed to do, and why he's so popular. You can't
please everybody, but he tries to give the people what they want. You
call that pandering. I call that representing his constituents.
Stop focusing on bullsh_t and let the man do what he's done best...
run this country.
I judge Bill Clinton by his results... that's all should matter.
Michael Buie
From: "Michael L. Buie"
To: "'cjburke@io.com'"
Subject: Judging Clinton
My response:
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:45:50 -0600 (CST)
Dear Mr. Buie,
First of all, let me start by saying I wasn't wrong. Bill Clinton is
bad for this country. And he'd be a lot worse if the Republicans
weren't there to put a stop too all his nonsense. Look back at his term
so far, and measure the accomplishments of his first two years versus
those that came later. He accomplished zero in those first two years,
even with his own party in power in Congress. With a GOP Congress, he
managed to sign into law six-tenths of the Contract With America --
right before taking credit for it. (You do remember him taking credit
for the line-item veto at the national convention, don't you? Something
his own party wouldn't give him.)
All of his ideas since 1994 have started in the GOP and were then
co-opted by Dick Morris. By that standard, yes, he's done a damn fine
job of getting GOP legislation past his own desk. But I haven't dropped
my guard. Socialized health care will come back piecemeal. Screwy
liberal judges are being put on the federal benches. And Bill Clinton
will name (should he stay in power)a majority of the Supreme Court (my
main concern in 96).
As for the economy, the only thing Clinton has to show for himself in
renaming Greenspan to the Fed position. Greenspan has had more to do
with keeping this economy humming than Clinton did. Under the
Democratic Congress, interest rates went up 14 times in one year. I
remember that -- my wife and I were looking for a house and as we slowly
had to raise the top value we wanted to pay out, the interest rates kept
creeping up to make it impossible to afford a mortgage. The Dow Jones
has done phenomenal since the 1994 takeover. Before that it meandered.
And after the GOP lost their showdown with Clinton it meandered again
for a time before taking off again.
Look at the world stage, soldiers dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu, soldiers "home by Christmas" are still in Bosnia two years
later, and in Haiti three "suicides" in three weeks by three soldiers.
And now he's finally prparing to answer Saddam but for all the wrong
reasons. And unlike Bush, Clinton has no backing, no mandate around
the world to proceed.
But let's forget all that for one moment and look at your argument.
He's doing a good job, what else matters?
Hey, I wonder if he can make the trains run on time.
Remember, Nixon had high approval numbers before he bailed out. He
even went to China. Nixon may have redeemed himself in some people's
eyes over the next couple of decades of his life. Clinton might do the
same. But the truth remains the truth. It isn't about his sex life,
it's about him. He's bad for government and he's bad for America.
The next move is his. And he can end this game of his any time he
wants. Personally, I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
When the rats desert the ship, we will see what else will come out.
Remember, Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. But he was still
convicted.
Thanks for writing. I have a cold at the moment, and I really needed
a chance to clear my head.
C. J. Burke
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Michael L. Buie wrote:
Dear Mr. Burke,
> When an employer hires someone, the employee becomes a problem when
he/she is not doing the job. I agree here.
> Clinton has done a better job than any in a long time.
I wouldn't agree here.
> Who cares about his sex life but you and a few others
This isn't about his sex life. And it's more than a "few" others.
> who can't stand the fact that they were wrong when they thought
he would be bad for this country?
I wasn't wrong. see above.
> So, you desperately look for any thread to
"Thread"? Tarzan swung on vines that were scrawnier.
> grasp... anything for the mice to try to bring the lion down.
He wouldn't be the first president to womanize, if that is what he's up
to.
And that makes it okay? And, please, spare me the "if that's what
he's up to." We already know that. (hey, doesn't "everybody do it" or
is it everybody but Bill?)
>If most or all of them did, what's the fuss about?
Sorry, but I won't allow that assumption. So the rest of
the statement is
irrelevant. Tell me, do you have proof that "most or all " did? And to
the extent that Bill Clinton does? (And that goes for just about every
"everybody did it" argument the Clinton camp has used.)
>If I put a private investigator on you, I bet I
could find plenty!
I'm curious what you think you might find? Loan deals?
Cattle bribes? FBI
files under my bed? A dozen hookers under my desk? Six lovers in Hoboken?
You might be able to give me a speeding ticket or two. Well,
probably
one. I think I'd start driving more cautiously if I were to get one.
Sorry, I'm not in Bill's league.
> Only an abuse of power or criminal actions should be the
focus of an
independent counsel's investigation. And that waste of my tax dollars on
years of pursuing Hillary... Puh...LEASE!!! It's not Clinton I want
fired. Get rid of those partisan idiots wasting our money. Would I fire
him if he is found to have lied about sleeping with anyone? It's none of
anybody's damn business.
High crimes and misdemeanors is the clause. And that's
what the focus of
Starr's investigation is. Every expansion of that investigation was
approved by Janet Reno. And if you're a Carville-bot who only drones out
whatever Chester tells you, you may not realize that Starr already has a
handful of convictions under his belt for this investigation. This is what
Carville sums up as "nothin'".
> All the politicians going after him are using
the same faults they
are guilty of as an excuse. It's just business as usual...playing the
game. I wish they could use the excuse of being useful. I certainly don't
agree with all of the President's policies, but he's the best bet
KAmerica's had in a long time. As for him trying to please everybody,
that's what he is supposed to do, and why he's so popular. You can't
please everybody, but he tries to give the people what they want. You
call that pandering. I call that representing his constituents.
Which faults are these? And to what extent? I know
what Sen Packwood's
faults were, but he's gone now. Teddy Kennedy is still there, but he's not
"going after him". So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
"Best bet"? To quote Carville, "he's got
nothin'".
> Stop focusing on bullsh_t and let the man do
what he's done best...
run this country.
Tell that to Carville and the rest of the spin doctors.
> I judge Bill Clinton by his results... that's all should
matter.
And that's your problem. Try judging a man by his
actions. See how he gets
those results. Remember that the ends never justifies the means. The
people criticizing Starr haven't forgotten that. Except for when they're
defending the President.
Michael Buie
From: "Christopher J. Burke"
To: "Michael L. Buie"
Subject: Re: Judging Clinton
However, since you bring it up, the Preesident should still be a
moral leader for the country. This man has a problem that needs to be
addressed. If you want to call it an addiction, fine. But he needs
help. But don't talk about governement that "values
famillies" when you don't value your own. And if a guy will
lie to his wife when it's convenient, why should I believe anything else
he has to ay? Why should I believe his reasons for going into Iraq?
Why should I believe that every penny of the surplus should go to Social
Security when he's spending $150 million of that very
same surplus.
And finally . . .
From: "Michael L. Buie" Dear Mr. Burke,
At least you bothered to answer... I've got to respect that. I
still say it's the other way around... the last few presidents couldn't
get it right. It took a leader like Clinton to get things done. It
took Clinton to put the brakes on a Republican Congress (on things like
abandoning our old and our poor young). I could get as specific as you
and we'd argue all day, but America is more prosperous (and less in
debt) than it was. It takes Congress AND a President to lead them.
Clinton's filled that bill in my book.
As for his moral integrity, everyone has faults... I don't think
anything proven and most that's suspected has shown him to be a monster.
And there is plenty to show great Presidents like John F. Kennedy,
Linden Johnson and others tomcatted around... we just didn't appoint a
special prosecutor to investigate the heck out of it.
I disagree with your view, but I like your style... you didn't let my
trigger words kill your rationale...
Good luck.
Michael
To: "'Christopher J. Burke'"
Subject: RE: Judging Clinton
I think that's the best I'm going to get. So I don't think any further response is necessary.
This page is Copyright 1998, Christopher J. Burke. All rights reserved.