Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[Pookie]

My main comment to you sweetie is that while you cherish waving Gore's appeal to the Supreme Court, you seem to forget that the state with all the problems just happens to be run by our Moron in Chief's brother. Sorry, that was hardly coincidence. I have zero doubt that Gore won in Florida, and that the government in FL skewed the results. Considering the family connection, Gore was certainly right to go the Supreme Court.

I'm not disagreeing with you concerning what the outcome should have been. But just to be fair, the counties in Florida that had the major problems were run by Democratic election officials. It's a bit unfair to pin that on the Governor, or the Florida Government. The voting process was screwed up from the get go. There's plenty of blame to go around for that, for both political parties.

And Florida didn't have all the problems either. They just ended up with an extremely close vote count that created challenges. If the vote totals had been wider apart for either candidate, in all likelihood it would have gotten very little if any publicity.

 

[69forever]

It's amoot point in my book because G.W. Bush is going to have the flag flying and be able to outspend the Dems. While the economy is in the tank and they're telling reserve forces that their tour of duty has been extended, Bush is on the money raising circuit. BIG money.

Meanwhile the Dems are left to fight it out between the myriad of wannabes, and are going to end up splitting the ticket.

I really hate to say it, REALLY hate to say it...but I think people are gonna get fooled again.

 

[LarzMachine]

New York City is leftist, yes...but you obviously have never been to upstate New York. California is liberal on social issues, but not often on economic ones.

California is "not often" liberal on economic issues? Funny, it seems like the current problems in California were caused by a far-left Governor and his bizarre ideas nobody on the right would endorse.

My main comment to you sweetie is that while you cherish waving Gore's appeal to the Supreme Court, you seem to forget that the state with all the problems just happens to be run by our Moron in Chief's brother.

And California was run by a liberal. Does that mean California's votes are suspect when they go to a Democrat?

Sorry, that was hardly coincidence. I have zero doubt that Gore won in Florida, and that the government in FL skewed the results.

Too bad that's not what the recounts showed. But it MUST be a conspiracy because the Democrats didn't win a close election...

Considering the family connection, Gore was certainly right to go the Supreme Court.

In other words, if you don't like the election results, cite any flimsy "evidence" you canb and scream to the Supreme Court to dodge the election.

Further, California has a huge number of electoral votes, as does New York as compared to states like Kansas. Which is why they are considered lynchpin states and vital to winning. (Along with TX and several others). They do have the power to swing the election results.

True, but not as ridiculously so as their sheer population would allow.

To address the idiocy of your comment that implied that the popular vote was skewed by the NY/CA vote...since when do they have 51% of the population between them?

When exactly did I say they did?

The reality, you right wing freak,

Are you guys capable of putting together a response to people of different political views without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Most people consider such behavior an admission of defeat.

is that the majority of Americans DID (and rightly) want Gore in office

No, the majority of people who voted wanted Gore in office, and it wasn't much of a majority. Besides, gays of all people should be extremely wary of trying to justify anything through simple majority logic. I'm sure you could find PLENTY of places in this country where a simple majority would gleefully vote for execution for gays, or for the country to be run as a theocracy, or as a Klansman's paradise. We have the Electoral College specifically to protect against the tyranny of the majority and to give the whole country a real say in how the country is run rather than allowing the largest cities to dictate terms. Ever hear of checks and balances?

it was only by shady circumstances that W got in.

No, it was through the Electoral College (described above) that W got in.

 

[LarzMachine]

How can my opinion of your openness to discussion be a logical fallacy?

Because it was an ad hominem attack. Do you know what ad hominem means?

No, New York and California are not far left. New York, you make have noticed, has a Republican governor.

So what? So does Minnesota, but this state is painfully liberal. It just means occasionally even the leftest of the left get sick of poverty and being taxed to death.

The case that awarded the presidency to Bush was titled "Bush v. Gore" not "Gore v. Bush" because Bush was the plaintiff.

Got a link?

The democrats are not blameless, particularly when it comes to campaign financing, but there is a question of proportionality involved in this issue

Nope. The Democrats are just as dirty as the Republicans.

The impeachment of Clinton

Which was no more reprehensible than Billy Jeff bombing Yugoslavia to distract people from Lewinsky's testimony...

the disenfranchisement of minority voters in the 2000 election

Does anyone have ANY proof of this, or is it yet another of those intangible "nobody was actuly forbidding anyone from voting, but they knew their votes weren't wanted" things?

the usurpation of the political process in Gore V.Bush

Funny, you just claimed it was Bush V Gore a minute ago...

the unprecendented redistricting schemes in Texas and Colorado

How is this "unprecedented" in any way? This has been going on for years. They covered it as a fairly standard practice in my high school government class, and that was over a decade ago.

the absurd californis recall

Maybe if the state didn't have a deficit larger than the BUDGETS of 48 states it would be ridiculous.

all add up to a pattern that makes Maher's statement that MzChrista quoted quite reasonable.

The same Bill Maher who thinks he was being "censored" because advertisers pulled their ads and funding when he started making an ass of himself by spouting anti-American propaganda?

I have no qualms with the Electoral College. That's not an issue in my opinion. My opinion that the selection of George Bush to the Presidency is illegitimate rests on Article II section 1 of the Constitution, which clearly vests in Congress, and not the Supreme Court, the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election.

Personally, I'd rather have seen Congress take care of it too, but lately the Supreme Court has more power ANYWAY, so it likely would have wound up there regardless. But that still doesn't change the fact that under current American election law, Bush won.

On the upside, at least we don't have a dictator for life who throws an election when he feels like it, only allows his cronies to vote, and appoints the only person in the government capable of overruling him... Bonus points if you know what country I'm referring to.

 

[LarzMachine]

It's amoot point in my book because G.W. Bush is going to have the flag flying and be able to outspend the Dems. While the economy is in the tank and they're telling reserve forces that their tour of duty has been extended, Bush is on the money raising circuit. BIG money.

As opposed to the Hollywood Democrats who bankrolled Gore...

 

[Pookie]

It's amoot point in my book because G.W. Bush is going to have the flag flying and be able to outspend the Dems. While the economy is in the tank and they're telling reserve forces that their tour of duty has been extended, Bush is on the money raising circuit. BIG money.

Meanwhile the Dems are left to fight it out between the myriad of wannabes, and are going to end up splitting the ticket.

I really hate to say it, REALLY hate to say it...but I think people are gonna get fooled again.

2000 Election Spending:

George W. Bush (Dick Cheney) ...
Raised: $193,088,650
Federal Funds: $67,560,000
Spent: $185,921,855
Cash on Hand: $7,201,734

Al Gore (Joseph Lieberman) ...
Raised: $132,804,039
Federal Funds: $83,016,084
Spent: $120,031,205
Cash on Hand: $12,772,827

Bush raised and spent quite a bit more than Gore did in 2000, and still lost the popular vote. Sometimes people get turned off by a lot of money getting put in their faces in the form of campaign ads.

It's not necessarily how much campaign money you have, it's how you use it. Sometimes you can have too much money in a campaign. But you have to have enough to get noticed in an ad campaign too. (Why does this seem to fit so well with another popular discussion. )

 

[Queersetti]

Because it was an ad hominem attack. Do you know what ad hominem means?



So what? So does Minnesota, but this state is painfully liberal. It just means occasionally even the leftest of the left get sick of poverty and being taxed to death.



Got a link?



Nope. The Democrats are just as dirty as the Republicans.



Which was no more reprehensible than Billy Jeff bombing Yugoslavia to distract people from Lewinsky's testimony...



Does anyone have ANY proof of this, or is it yet another of those intangible "nobody was actuly forbidding anyone from voting, but they knew their votes weren't wanted" things?



Funny, you just claimed it was Bush V Gore a minute ago...



How is this "unprecedented" in any way? This has been going on for years. They covered it as a fairly standard practice in my high school government class, and that was over a decade ago.



Maybe if the state didn't have a deficit larger than the BUDGETS of 48 states it would be ridiculous.



The same Bill Maher who thinks he was being "censored" because advertisers pulled their ads and funding when he started making an ass of himself by spouting anti-American propaganda?



Personally, I'd rather have seen Congress take care of it too, but lately the Supreme Court has more power ANYWAY, so it likely would have wound up there regardless. But that still doesn't change the fact that under current American election law, Bush won.

On the upside, at least we don't have a dictator for life who throws an election when he feels like it, only allows his cronies to vote, and appoints the only person in the government capable of overruling him... Bonus points if you know what country I'm referring to.

Thank you for pointing out that I mistakenly flipped the names Bush and Gore, the case was indeed titled Bush v. Gore, because Bush, not Gore, was the plaintiff. I appreciate your pointing out that error.

If I thought you had any interest in a real discussion of these issues, I would happily continue, but it is clear to me that you have no interest in discussing, but only in browbeating those who disagree with your reactionary views, so this will end my participation in the conversation.

 

[ExistentialLuv]

I am not a political person. Love my country but fear my goverment type. Could anyone explain to me though why are sexuallity has anything to do with the goverment and politics? I do realize we need to have the right to marry, and rights that protect us, but what else is there to it really? I will join a cause if it is something I believe in, so anyone care to make a believer out of me to get involved in the political asspect of gay rights.

 

[LarzMachine]

If I thought you had any interest in a real discussion of these issues, I would happily continue, but it is clear to me that you have no interest in discussing, but only in browbeating those who disagree with your reactionary views, so this will end my participation in the conversation.

Which, again, proves you have nothing to say, preferring ad hominem attacks over real debate. Thank you for playing!

 

[69forever]

I am not a political person. Love my country but fear my goverment type. Could anyone explain to me though why are sexuallity has anything to do with the goverment and politics? I do realize we need to have the right to marry, and rights that protect us, but what else is there to it really? I will join a cause if it is something I believe in, so anyone care to make a believer out of me to get involved in the political asspect of gay rights.

I'm no expert, luv, but some of it has to do with the "morality"
of same sex marriages. Most of straight America is terrified that
to recognize same sex unions undermines their religous beleifs.

Most of it, and this is where the political neccesity of involvement
from the gay/lesbian community comes in, is the granting or
not granting of benefits for same sex unions. Without the same
rights as a married straight couple, you cann't put your life
partner under your health insurance policy at work.

You or they have no legal recourse in what happens to your community property, if family members jump in, when one of you
dies.

Life Insurance, 401k's, Social Security, etc. etc.

Big business is telling the government that hey'll tolerate gays
and lesbians as long as they're still second class citisens.

 

[Queersetti]

Which, again, proves you have nothing to say, preferring ad hominem attacks over real debate. Thank you for playing!

You are correct, the fact that I said I did not care to discuss this issue with you proves that I have nothing to say to you on the issue. That was quite an astute observation on your part.

 

[SensualMan]

Queer - Larz is right...the fact that you can not give one logical, coherent, factual defense to even one of Larz's points just shows that you have nothing to say...not just to him but in general. You like to get on here and spout rhetoric.....If you can't handle people being critical of your political beliefs, maybe you should think twice before you make those beliefs public on the internet!

I find the whole topic of this thread to be ridiculous and just shows how skewed some people are about how life is supposed to operate....You actually need someone to do something for you or your "cause"? Why don't you go out and do it for yourself? The bottom line is that most of mainstream America is not homophobic or have some great fear that the legalization of gay unions will undermine their moral foundation....they are just tired of the fact that it is even an issue...it is a private, personal matter and should stay that way. I, as well as many of the conservatives I know, have nothing against domestic partnerships or any other name you might want to give it. The government has no place telling you who you can and can't spend your life with. But on the other hand, if you choose to bring it up and make it an issue, I have the right to disagree with you and tell you how I feel about the lifestyle choice. The first amendment does not exist to protect just the minority or the unpopular....it protects the majority as well. I have as much right to exercise that right on gay issues as you do, and you you continue to make it an issue and exercise your rights...more and more conservatives will feel compelled to go exercise their rights as well.

That was all just a very wordy way to say that you have to sleep in the bed you make. If you want to challenge the mainstream and force people into accepting an "alternative" lifestyle...you have to be prepared for, and accept, the backlask against your "cause". It is human nature, when someone starts to feel challenged, or pushed, they start to push back.

 

[SensualMan]

Queer...(part 2)

I just read one of your first posts about the President setting a tone, which I happen to agree with you on. In 1996 were you as vocal about wanting to get rid of Clinton as you are about getting rid of Bush? If you honestly believe your argument about setting a tone, what kind of tone did Clinton set? I think most people would feel that his tone was one of lies, deception, adultery, pandering.....I could go on but you get the picture. He told people what they wanted, and needed, to hear, but never acted on it. In fact I challenge you to name one major policy initative he initiated and enacted....I imagine you will have a hard time finding one....More importantly, bringing it back to this thread...name one thing he did for the gay "cause"?

 

[Queersetti]

Queer - Larz is right...the fact that you can not give one logical, coherent, factual defense to even one of Larz's points just shows that you have nothing to say...not just to him but in general. You like to get on here and spout rhetoric.....If you can't handle people being critical of your political beliefs, maybe you should think twice before you make those beliefs public on the internet!

I find the whole topic of this thread to be ridiculous and just shows how skewed some people are about how life is supposed to operate....You actually need someone to do something for you or your "cause"? Why don't you go out and do it for yourself? The bottom line is that most of mainstream America is not homophobic or have some great fear that the legalization of gay unions will undermine their moral foundation....they are just tired of the fact that it is even an issue...it is a private, personal matter and should stay that way. I, as well as many of the conservatives I know, have nothing against domestic partnerships or any other name you might want to give it. The government has no place telling you who you can and can't spend your life with. But on the other hand, if you choose to bring it up and make it an issue, I have the right to disagree with you and tell you how I feel about the lifestyle choice. The first amendment does not exist to protect just the minority or the unpopular....it protects the majority as well. I have as much right to exercise that right on gay issues as you do, and you you continue to make it an issue and exercise your rights...more and more conservatives will feel compelled to go exercise their rights as well.

That was all just a very wordy way to say that you have to sleep in the bed you make. If you want to challenge the mainstream and force people into accepting an "alternative" lifestyle...you have to be prepared for, and accept, the backlask against your "cause". It is human nature, when someone starts to feel challenged, or pushed, they start to push back.

You haven't any idea as to how I live my life, or what I may or may not have done for "the cause".

Fight back all you like. We are not afraid of you any more.

 

[SensualMan]

I can learn much about you and your lifestyle from what you say on these boards and how you say it.....

And no one is talking about fighting, and the last thing I want anyone to be is afraid...I am simply stating that if you are going to continue to be vocal and in your face, their are those on the other side that are going to be just as vocal and just as in your face. And when they are there, in your face...I don't want to hear you whining about homophobia!

And I was just reading your thread dealing with Johnny...He makes a great point about your double standard...you pass it off as a joke when you talk about seeing a straight man giving oral sex to two gay men....but if a straight person were to make the same sort of joke about a gay individual, there would be uproar in the gay community over it.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Queer...(part 2)

I just read one of your first posts about the President setting a tone, which I happen to agree with you on. In 1996 were you as vocal about wanting to get rid of Clinton as you are about getting rid of Bush? If you honestly believe your argument about setting a tone, what kind of tone did Clinton set? I think most people would feel that his tone was one of lies, deception, adultery, pandering.....I could go on but you get the picture. He told people what they wanted, and needed, to hear, but never acted on it. In fact I challenge you to name one major policy initative he initiated and enacted....I imagine you will have a hard time finding one....More importantly, bringing it back to this thread...name one thing he did for the gay "cause"?

I don't believe that the President's personal life is any of our business. It is the tone he sets in his handling of public policy that I was referring to, not the way he conducts his private affairs. This is a principal I apply evenly. I oppose George Bush for his policies, not for his history of alcohol and cocaine abuse.

I'll happily answer your challenge. Bill Clinton pushed through Congress and signed the Motor Voter Bill, The Lobbying Disclosure Act, and created Americorps.

He brokered peace in Northern Ireland, restored democracy in haiti, negotiated the end of conflict in Bosnia and the nuclear disarmament of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine.

The charge that he pandered is easily disproven by the fact that he signed the Welfare reform Bill, which most of his supporters opposed, and pushed through both NAFTA and GATT against the objections of his own party.

Under Bill Clinton the U.S. went from record (well, until now) deficits to a record surplus. Should he get full credit for that? No, he shares it with the Republican congress, with whom he worked for the public welfare even while under it's most vitriolic attacks. Given the increasingly hostile nature of American politics, the fact that he managed to work with the GOP is an achievement in itself.

During the Clinton Presidency the U.S. economy created almost 22 million new jobs, and enjoyed the lowest unemployment rates in over 30 years. We had the longest economic expansion in history- 107 consecutive months of growth. The lowest inflation rate since the early 60s.

Bill Clinton was the first President to address a gay organization.

He appointed the first openly gay ambassador and the first openly lesbian head of a federal agency.

He signed executive orders banning discrimination based or sexual orientation in federal hiring, adding orientation discrimination to the prohibitions included in Title IX, prohibiting the IRS from discriminating against gays, including orientation as a category under which refugees can ask for asylum, and banning providers of health insurance to federal employees from discriminating against gays.

He used his veto threat to block Congress from banning gays and lesbians in DC from being allowed to adopt.

I did not agree with him on "Don't ask, don't tell" or the Defense of Marriage Act, but on balance, he was by any measure the best President gay Americans ever had.

 

[Queersetti]

I can learn much about you and your lifestyle from what you say on these boards and how you say it.....

And no one is talking about fighting, and the last thing I want anyone to be is afraid...I am simply stating that if you are going to continue to be vocal and in your face, their are those on the other side that are going to be just as vocal and just as in your face. And when they are there, in your face...I don't want to hear you whining about homophobia!

And I was just reading your thread dealing with Johnny...He makes a great point about your double standard...you pass it off as a joke when you talk about seeing a straight man giving oral sex to two gay men....but if a straight person were to make the same sort of joke about a gay individual, there would be uproar in the gay community over it.

There is no double standard involved. Such jokes are made on Lit every day and there is no uproar.

Personally, I would prefer that homophobes be open about their attitudes.

 

[69forever]

Everyone out here rushes to say they don't oppose same sex
unions. As for marriage, that's another story. Forget the moral
question. It involves gays and lesbians having the same economic rights as heterosexual marriages. The only way the
law provides for these rights is by marriage.

I don't see any candidate taking on that challenge.

Not when you've got the insurance industry, commerce and
industry lining up against it. They don't want to pay. Period.

 

[SensualMan]

That's a valiant attempt

"I don't believe that the President's personal life is any of our business. It is the tone he sets in his handling of public policy that I was referring to, not the way he conducts his private affairs. This is a principal I apply evenly. I oppose George Bush for his policies, not for his history of alcohol and cocaine abuse."

- Yet you are quick to mention drugs and alcohol in reference to Bush but not to Clinton. And you can not for a second believe that his problems resulting from personal behavior did not have a negative affect on his decision making. I will not get into the whole "wag the dog" incident with the cruise missles because I will never know the real truth about why Clinton launched cruise missles. The fact that a large number of people believed he would launch an attack to distract attention from his personal life shows what a lack of credibility he had because of his personal life.

"I'll happily answer your challenge. Bill Clinton pushed through Congress and signed the Motor Voter Bill, The Lobbying Disclosure Act, and created Americorps."

- You may be able to make an argument that the Motor Voter Bill was significant, but I don't agree. It just makes life easier when it comes to voting. Lobbying Disclosure, ok, that is a good step.....Americorps is a noble idea but what does it really do for the average American?


"He brokered peace in Northern Ireland, restored democracy in haiti, negotiated the end of conflict in Bosnia and the nuclear disarmament of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine."

- I will concede that Clinton did fairly well on the foreign policy front, he made some great efforts to improve things, but foreign policy alone is not enough. He had his share of failures though. He made no progress in the Middle East, and Northern Ireland was well on the way to peace, he just happened to be in office when it happened. He sent men and women to die in Bosnia, and the people that supported him them now criticize Bush for the same thing. Clinton also had a number of questionable dealing with the Chinese and others involving secrets, and he also failed to address terrorism, which members of his own cabinet admitted too. He also cut military spending and dramatically reduced the size, power, and effectiveness of our fighting force. Why do soldiers have to stay in Iraq for 6 months to a year without knowing when they are coming home? Because Clinton reduced the number of people on active duty by almost 50%!

"The charge that he pandered is easily disproven by the fact that he signed the Welfare reform Bill, which most of his supporters opposed, and pushed through both NAFTA and GATT against the objections of his own party."

- He signed the Welfare Reform Act...but he would never have had the chance if the Republicans had not passed it to him to sign. He was forced to sign it because it was popular with the people.

"Under Bill Clinton the U.S. went from record (well, until now) deficits to a record surplus. Should he get full credit for that? No, he shares it with the Republican congress, with whom he worked for the public welfare even while under it's most vitriolic attacks. Given the increasingly hostile nature of American politics, the fact that he managed to work with the GOP is an achievement in itself."

- This one can be reduced to two words....Ronald Reagan....even liberal economists now have to admit that much of the growth in the 90's came from the economic foundation built on the policies of Ronald Reagan....cutting taxes and promoting spending and investment gave us the growth of the 90's....that and one other man, Bill Gates. Reagan cut taxes across the board and doubled the GDP in 8 years, something that many thought was impossible. Every tax cut in history has resulted in increased tax revenue, and he knew it. If you give Clinton credit for the growth, do you also blame him for the decline? The economy and stock market started a significant decline well before Bush entered office. In calender year 2000, the NASDAQ went from over 5000 to less than 2500....it lost half it's value....and Clinton was in office.

"Bill Clinton was the first President to address a gay organization.

He appointed the first openly gay ambassador and the first openly lesbian head of a federal agency.

He signed executive orders banning discrimination based or sexual orientation in federal hiring, adding orientation discrimination to the prohibitions included in Title IX, prohibiting the IRS from discriminating against gays, including orientation as a category under which refugees can ask for asylum, and banning providers of health insurance to federal employees from discriminating against gays.

He used his veto threat to block Congress from banning gays and lesbians in DC from being allowed to adopt.

I did not agree with him on "Don't ask, don't tell" or the Defense of Marriage Act, but on balance, he was by any measure the best President gay Americans ever had."


- As for gay issues, Clinton was far from the first to appoint gays to cabinet and other federal positions. If you admire it because they were openly gay, I can't take that away from you, but that is not that significant to me. He just happened to hold office at a time when he knew it would be accepted. If he had held office 20 years earlier he would not have done it. He did enforce laws and protect rights afforded under the Constitution, but that was his job...why should he get credit for doing what he is elected to do?


The bottom line is that Clinton has no legacy. Most successful policies he supported of enacted were created by the Republican congress that was elected in 1994. Clinton took Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and stole most of it, trying to take credit for it. I think the fact that he had to fight legal battles to get a library built in his home state says a lot about what people from his own home think about him!

 

[Queersetti]

Re: That's a valiant attempt

"I don't believe that the President's personal life is any of our business. It is the tone he sets in his handling of public policy that I was referring to, not the way he conducts his private affairs. This is a principal I apply evenly. I oppose George Bush for his policies, not for his history of alcohol and cocaine abuse."

- Yet you are quick to mention drugs and alcohol in reference to Bush but not to Clinton. And you can not for a second believe that his problems resulting from personal behavior did not have a negative affect on his decision making. I will not get into the whole "wag the dog" incident with the cruise missles because I will never know the real truth about why Clinton launched cruise missles. The fact that a large number of people believed he would launch an attack to distract attention from his personal life shows what a lack of credibility he had because of his personal life.

"I'll happily answer your challenge. Bill Clinton pushed through Congress and signed the Motor Voter Bill, The Lobbying Disclosure Act, and created Americorps."

- You may be able to make an argument that the Motor Voter Bill was significant, but I don't agree. It just makes life easier when it comes to voting. Lobbying Disclosure, ok, that is a good step.....Americorps is a noble idea but what does it really do for the average American?


"He brokered peace in Northern Ireland, restored democracy in haiti, negotiated the end of conflict in Bosnia and the nuclear disarmament of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine."

- I will concede that Clinton did fairly well on the foreign policy front, he made some great efforts to improve things, but foreign policy alone is not enough. He had his share of failures though. He made no progress in the Middle East, and Northern Ireland was well on the way to peace, he just happened to be in office when it happened. He sent men and women to die in Bosnia, and the people that supported him them now criticize Bush for the same thing. Clinton also had a number of questionable dealing with the Chinese and others involving secrets, and he also failed to address terrorism, which members of his own cabinet admitted too. He also cut military spending and dramatically reduced the size, power, and effectiveness of our fighting force. Why do soldiers have to stay in Iraq for 6 months to a year without knowing when they are coming home? Because Clinton reduced the number of people on active duty by almost 50%!

"The charge that he pandered is easily disproven by the fact that he signed the Welfare reform Bill, which most of his supporters opposed, and pushed through both NAFTA and GATT against the objections of his own party."

- He signed the Welfare Reform Act...but he would never have had the chance if the Republicans had not passed it to him to sign. He was forced to sign it because it was popular with the people.

"Under Bill Clinton the U.S. went from record (well, until now) deficits to a record surplus. Should he get full credit for that? No, he shares it with the Republican congress, with whom he worked for the public welfare even while under it's most vitriolic attacks. Given the increasingly hostile nature of American politics, the fact that he managed to work with the GOP is an achievement in itself."

- This one can be reduced to two words....Ronald Reagan....even liberal economists now have to admit that much of the growth in the 90's came from the economic foundation built on the policies of Ronald Reagan....cutting taxes and promoting spending and investment gave us the growth of the 90's....that and one other man, Bill Gates. Reagan cut taxes across the board and doubled the GDP in 8 years, something that many thought was impossible. Every tax cut in history has resulted in increased tax revenue, and he knew it. If you give Clinton credit for the growth, do you also blame him for the decline? The economy and stock market started a significant decline well before Bush entered office. In calender year 2000, the NASDAQ went from over 5000 to less than 2500....it lost half it's value....and Clinton was in office.

"Bill Clinton was the first President to address a gay organization.

He appointed the first openly gay ambassador and the first openly lesbian head of a federal agency.

He signed executive orders banning discrimination based or sexual orientation in federal hiring, adding orientation discrimination to the prohibitions included in Title IX, prohibiting the IRS from discriminating against gays, including orientation as a category under which refugees can ask for asylum, and banning providers of health insurance to federal employees from discriminating against gays.

He used his veto threat to block Congress from banning gays and lesbians in DC from being allowed to adopt.

I did not agree with him on "Don't ask, don't tell" or the Defense of Marriage Act, but on balance, he was by any measure the best President gay Americans ever had."


- As for gay issues, Clinton was far from the first to appoint gays to cabinet and other federal positions. If you admire it because they were openly gay, I can't take that away from you, but that is not that significant to me. He just happened to hold office at a time when he knew it would be accepted. If he had held office 20 years earlier he would not have done it. He did enforce laws and protect rights afforded under the Constitution, but that was his job...why should he get credit for doing what he is elected to do?


The bottom line is that Clinton has no legacy. Most successful policies he supported of enacted were created by the Republican congress that was elected in 1994. Clinton took Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and stole most of it, trying to take credit for it. I think the fact that he had to fight legal battles to get a library built in his home state says a lot about what people from his own home think about him!

We can agree to disagree on Clinton's legacy in general. I strongly disagree with many of your contentions, and I doubt either of us will budge the other or cast any real light on the issues for those who are reading.

But I'd like to stay on topic in regard to the pertinent issue, Clinton's record on gay rights. I would like to point again the executive orders which had real impact in the lives of many gays and lesbians, as well as sending a powerful signal that our government recognized our concerns.

To dismiss the appointment of openly gay officials as merely a sign of the times is, I think, unfair. One can as easily claim that any President who sat in the Oval Office in 1954 would have sent troops to Little Rock, but the fact is that one man, Eisenhower, made that decision,not as an abstract argument, but in reality, and deserves to be honored for the political courage such a decision took. It's worth pointing out that, for decisions that you seem to feel were no big deal, the conservatives in Congress make quite a bit on noise on the issue. There was quite a fight over Hormel's appointment, as I'm sure you will recall.

 

[SensualMan]

POlitical Appointments

I will concede that the appointment of openly gay individuals to high level federal positions should be considered a significant step forward. And while I am sure that Clinton did it because he felt it was the right thing, no politician, especially Clinton, would have wasted political capital on an issue he thought he may lose. He knew the time was right and that his appointments would be successful, that is why he chose to act when he did. Like I said, that in no way discredits his intentions, which I hope were good, but more important than his intentions was the timing.

It is just amazing how die hard many of Clinton's supporters remain to this day. Like some sort of strange idol worship they fail to see how many character flaws he had, and how many mistakes he made in his personal and professional life. The real legacy is that he managed to get anything done with all of the turmoil going on in his life. And let's not forget that in two election, he never won a majority of the vote, he won a plurality. And if you consider the low voter turn out, that means very few people in the US actually voted for him for President. I am not saying he was illegitimate, just saying it is something to keep in mind.

They carry that feeling over to Gore too, and blinded by anger, can not step back and admit that the 2000 election was just doomed from the beginning. What happened in Florida was tragic and pointed out flaws in our system, but it was dealt with according to the laws of our country so it is a legal election. No one stole it, although BOTH sides did as much as they could to tilt the tables in their favor. And it amzes me how ignorant some people are on the political process in this country when they rant about Gore winning the popular vote as if it matters.

People just need to start being involved and honest about politics and politicians. I voted for Bush in 2000, and I think he has done a good job. I won't vote for him again in 2004 because I think there will be someone who more closely reflects my political stance on domestic issues. I think the Patriot Act is a crock, does nothing to really make us any more safe. I think government should cut, and my guess is it could be cut almost in half. We spend billions of dollars and way too much time enforcing laws that should not even exist. I support what Bush did in Iraq, and I think all Americans should support it. The time for discussion is over...we went in and now we have to do right by the Iraqi people and stabilize that country. The democratic presidential hopefuls are going to be surprised by the huge backlash againt their vocal criticism of the war when it comes time for the primaries. Right now they are simply pandering to the very vocal minority in the democratic party.

 

[SensualMan]

Rambling on....(sorry)

That last post sort of rambled on, not sure if it was very coherent or not. I just woke up and have a busy day ahead of me so I am distracted.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Re: POlitical Appointments

It is just amazing how die hard many of Clinton's supporters remain to this day. Like some sort of strange idol worship they fail to see how many character flaws he had, and how many mistakes he made in his personal and professional life. The real legacy is that he managed to get anything done with all of the turmoil going on in his life. And let's not forget that in two election, he never won a majority of the vote, he won a plurality. And if you consider the low voter turn out, that means very few people in the US actually voted for him for President. I am not saying he was illegitimate, just saying it is something to keep in mind.

Something to keep in mind about Bush too...but I would call him illegitimate


As for what good Americorps does for the "average" american...it makes college a more viable choice. 10k in return for 2 years of community service. If you attend a state college, that could pay for up to 2 years of a college education. Or if you serve after college, it can reduce your debt. It was an amazing program, in the same vein as JFK's "ask not" speech.

 

[SensualMan]

Illegitimate...

Unfortunately for you, you can call Bush illegitimate all you like...that does not make it so. As I already pointed out he was elected in accordance with present legal precedent. Just because you disagree with the outcome does not make it illegitimate.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Illegitimate...

Unfortunately for you, you can call Bush illegitimate all you like...that does not make it so. As I already pointed out he was elected in accordance with present legal precedent. Just because you disagree with the outcome does not make it illegitimate.

What legal precedent would that be?

Did the Supreme Court intervene in any previous Presidential elections?