When Clinton Stared Down The Republican Terrorists

[Playinghardball]

You see, Bill Clinton, in 1995, did something that President Obama didn't. He stared down the Republican terrorists, a la John Boehner in the House when young Boehner threatened to take the debt ceiling hostage. Let's take a short walk down memory lane, shall we?

Nobody should assume we’re going to have a debt-limit extension,” John Boehner warned. “If the vote were held today, it would not pass.” Sound familiar? This was Boehner in November of 1995, when he was the House Republican Conference chairman and his party was refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless President Bill Clinton agreed to a package of sweeping spending cuts.

Well, gosh, now we know where Boehner learned how to practice hostage-taking! It's too bad that Boehner didn't succeed......well, until sixteen years later when he faced a new Democratic President. What happened to make John Boehner back down from trying to take hostages?

Bill Clinton.

More at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/03/1002571/-When-Clinton-Stared-Down-The-Republican-Terrorists?via=siderec

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Bullshit!! Bill Clinton was RepubliCON's best friend! Unrec!

[tblue]

9. Doesn't change the facts of the original post tho.

Credit where credit is due. This is what Obama should have done.

[eridani]

44. Right. Clinton pushed a lot of crappy legislation through, but that time he did the right thing n/

[trueblue2007]

19. Well I just gave it a RECOMMEND because I read the original posters note

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. I don't give a shit who wrote it. You can't rewrite history!!

Facts: Clinton was responsible for some of the most draconian *deregulatory* schemes in history. Deregulation of communication. Deregulation of the banks. Pro-free trade NAFTA and CAFTA agreements.

Welfare reform, DADT, bragging about DOMA in 1996.

Yes, Bill was a good president, but to paint him as some kind of progressive stalwart is just plain irresponsible.

You and the OP ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

[bluestate10]

32. Activity works. Anger is worthless. Organize locally for democrats that you prefer. nt

[Cosmocat]

22. This is republican type nonsense ...

Seriously ...

Suggesting that Clinton was some kind of great liberal/progressive to slam BO is as bad as any one of the 1000s of ways republicans completely rework history to support whatever nonsense they are pushing in the moment.

This is not a knock on Clinton, he was a darn good president.

But, as some have noted, NAFTA was a corporatist bill. His Welfare Reform was the equivilent of what many are bashing BO for. He signed off on some of the legislation that enabled the runaway wall street shiite that eventually created the 08 blowup. He signed off on the bill that allowed for further corporatization of the media.

And, he fought back a bit, but the right wing just hounded the guy. Countless congressional hearings, 10s of millions of tax payer dollars into investigating him, Hillary and the fricken pet cat.

Sorry, Bill and Hillary crashed and burned on HCR, and BO is slammed for actually getting it done ...

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot ...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Thanks for this!! ODS has these people rewriting history. It's worse than the Palin and Bachmann

crazies!!!

[spanone]

23. sure, that's why they impeached him.

[Dawson Leery]

2. These days, they are called "teahadist".

And yes, Clinton did stare down Mullah Gingrich.

[dennis4868]

3. bullshit....

Clinton cuts entitlements, did welfare reform and NAFTA...all repub ideas....if Clinton was president these days with 24/7 cable news and internet, many dems would view him differently today!

Obama is the progressive president in the last 50-60 years www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

[DURHAM D]

20. Obama campaigned on "fixing" NAFTA.

Please post his actions in that regard.

[dennis4868]

30. didn't know Obama's...

term is up....

[BlueCheese]

38. Which entitlements did he cut?

[DURHAM D]

41. I have the same question.

Can't wait for the answer.

[dennis4868]

4. and he sure stared them down...

when he was trying to pass Hillary Care...NOT!

[DURHAM D]

17. Too bad Senators Moynihan and Kennedy are deceased -

given you need to take up the Hillary Care issue with them. It wasn't the Republicans - it was the Senator Democrats who killed it.

[dennis4868]

29. and it was dems (DINOs)

who killed the public option but DUers had no problem blaming Obama for that...

[BlueCheese]

39. HillaryCare?

Wow, talk about a right-wing meme if there ever was one.

[frazzled]

5. Like when he stared them down on Gays in Military or Welfare Reform?

Like the way he stared them down and won big on his health reform plan? (sarcasm).

Look, I'm not criticizing Bill Clinton at all when I bring these things up. I am criticizing the revisionist amateur historians here who can't even remember 15 years ago.

[Control-Z]

10. Those were different fights

15 years ago, if you can remember. Progress happened between then and now, though not at the rate some of us would like. DADT was actually an achievement for the times.

[DURHAM D]

18. DADT history has re-written to fit a better Obama narrative for the last primary.

You are right - DADT was an improvement over all prior policy. Clinton campaigned on open service for gays in the military but by time he got to the WH Democratic Senators Sam Nunn, David Boren and others had out flanked him with federal legislation to prohibit service. Colin Powell joined in to make the case against service. DADT was the best Clinton could get and it was remarkable considering the forces that lined up against it.



the stupid it burns doesn't it?

[frazzled]

21. Let me hear that again ...

it "was actually an achievement for the times." Well, perhaps so ... but I recall it well. People were angry that Clinton capitulated so quickly to the opposition. He was unable to deliver on a major promise. He got steamrollered. Yet still, in retrospect, we can say (and I agree with you) that it was an improvement for the times. Just twenty years later, it's led to full acceptance of gays serving openly in the military.

Now fast-forward to today. When Obama had to give up on the public option because of Congressional opposition and outcries of socialism, etc. there was great chest beating and rending of clothes. He capitulated to the opposition. He was unable to deliver on a major promise. He got steamrollered. Yet, are you willing to say the legislation he fought hard to get was a major achievement for the times and acknowledge that it will probably lead to a fully functional system in the not-so-distant future? Perhaps you are, but many loud voices here are not, and are appealing to all kinds of revisionist histories regarding FDR or Clinton and their unflappable strength and tenacity to claim that the current president is no better than a corporatist Republican. The truth is, both earlier presidents compromised heavily with their opposition and supported legislation in the end that fell far far short of ideal goals. We can see in retrospect that they still moved the country forward. No such berth is given to Obama. That's all I'm saying.

[Control-Z]

26. I think we're on the same page.

"No such berth is given to Obama. That's all I'm saying." I happen to agree, 100%, with you. I've never expected any president to accomplish everything he/she promises in campaign mode. Life doesn't work that way for anyone, except the extremely lucky or crooked. The promises are what lead to progress. Like DADT for the times. Look where it brought us to today. Of course, I would have liked things to progress more quickly. I want what I want right now, just like the next guy. But I've never expected it. And I would be very suspicious if I got it. It's not supposed to work that way.

It is only now, in very current modern times, that taking the entire prize has become the only acceptable win. More and more people are buying into that, including some democrats. Somewhere along the line they got the idea that Obama could move mountains and expected him to. Nothing but a perfect outcome would do. I don't feel that way.

Treasonous republicans are willing to play dangerous, dirty games to get what they want. I'm afraid there are some who expect the president to play the way they do, as that is really the only way to achieve immediate results. As much as I want a fully progressive government right now, I do not want a president willing to take the low road for it. It wouldn't be progressive, just by the means of getting there. If that makes sense.

[frazzled]

27. Totally on the same page

And you said it better than I ever could.

The split on the left (and this began around 2000) has been between those of us who want to emulate the tactics of right-wing politics and media, and those of us who don't want to abandon our principles to become like them. I recall many years ago, when talk radio was big, people complaining that we needed our own Rush Limbaugh. God forbid. It's not that we don't share the same ultimate policy goals: it's a realist/idealist split in achieving those goals that I'm afraid is widening.

[Control-Z]

28. "that we needed our own Rush Limbaugh"

There are times when Big Ed, MSNBC, starts to sound a bit like Rush. I've noticed it when he's attacking the president, though, so it may very well just be my own perception.

[loyalsister]

35. + 1000

[RockaFowler]

6. And uh didn't they Impeach him??

Revisionist history around here. Yes Boner is an idiot, and has been pulling this shite for years (all under Democratic Presidents mind you - he didn't utter one peep when Junior was pres), but he was one of the guys who impeached Clinton shortly thereafter. His little teahadist group (the Contract on America crew) back then were so against Clinton that they impeached him for having an affair.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. Not to pit nicks, but since you mentioned revisionist history

They impeached him for lying about an affair, not for 'having' one.

Kinda harm your argument to deride revisionism while revisioning. ;)

[eridani]

45. So? Clinton fought back on that occasion too. His approval ratings went way up

--as a result (and NOT because the public approved of his conduct). Wish he'd been that gutsy fighting repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[onehandle]

7. The Big Dog would have kicked the crap out of them.

[Tatiana]

11. Ouch!

I still remember that bizarre presser and the awkward handoff. For a second, when Clinton took the podium and began fielding questions, I almost thought he was still President.

[tblue]

12. I'd love him for just TRYING!!! Successful or not.

I don't blame Obama for failing. I blame him for not trying. That is unforgivable.

[zalinda]

13. You got it ! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. They wouldn't know what hit them by the time he was finished. There's no way in

hell he would have signed on to this bill. He also wouldn't have put up with all the Teabagger shit either. He recommended the 14th Amendment to Obama...because that's what HE would have done. You don't play nice with thugs. Obama THRIVES on playing nice with them.

[ProSense]

14. Ah,

You see, Bill Clinton, in 1995, did something that President Obama didn't. He stared down the Republican terrorists, a la John Boehner in the House when young Boehner threatened to take the debt ceiling hostage. Let's take a short walk down memory lane, shall we?

<...>

Even though Bill Clinton was a centrist who signed into law horrible bills like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA, and other corporate-friendly laws, he at least knew when to draw the line against Republicans. It seems that our President doesn't know when to draw that necessary line against Republicans.

<...>

"memory lane," where the debt ceiling debate is the same as the debate to shut down the government. Obama avoided that earlier this year. What good is staring down Republicans if the end results are some of the worst policies in history?

I love these responses to that diary:

Ahh, revisionist history anyone? BULLSHIT

I'm not sure if you were old enough to vote in 1996, but if you were I am sure you would have been just, if not more so at Bill Clinton for abandoning the the left more so than Obama could ever have.

- Clinton utterly destroyed the social safety net for families in crisis

- NAFTA was a deliberate and direct blow to organized labor

- substantial reduction in federal spending as a share of gross domestic product during the Clinton years. Clinton was the second most conservative president since WW II, only behind Ronald Reagan.

- Instituted draconian sentencing guidelines for drug offenses in the federal level

Clinton drew the line for one reason, his style was completely different that Obama's; instead of wanting to be a compromiser Clinton wanted to ensure that he and only he wold get any political benefit from any deal he reached.. so in politics he was 'better' which seems like the only real paradigm that you see to be judging our president on. And if that's the case, prepare for more disappointment to come because the current president, looks at political battles and record keeping as petty and beneath him... which I happen to agree with.

The cognitive dissonance in this sentence

Even though Bill Clinton was a centrist who signed into law horrible bills like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA, and other corporate-friendly laws, he at least knew when to draw the line against Republicans.

Is almost literally painful.

Credit where due, slink, for at least not completely ignoring what were two of the biggest betrayals of progressive principle by the Clinton administration, but it also must be pointed out that a lot of us at the time were suggesting that those were exactly "when to draw the line against Republicans," but particularly with NAFTA, that was Big Dawg's baby. A large part of why we didn't get any traction on HCR before the "Republican Revolution" axe fell in 1994 was that the major labor unions were too busy fighting against NAFTA to fight for health care--and the unions told Clinton that at the time.

I must have just imagined these line-drawing opportunities as well:

Glass-Steagall repeal
Communications Decency Act
WTO
DOMA
Permanent MFN for China
Welfare "reform"

Hey, I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary, so I was all "hold your nose and vote for Bill" from the get-go, and I did. Ain't no perfect President, so if ya'll gotta hold your nose to vote for Barack, I'm just fine with that. But the sad truth is that the last President who was fortunate enough to be operating in a political landscape that allowed for governing as a progressive in any substantial way was Lyndon Johnson.

If Obama doesn't hand them the Republicans head on a platter, he's a RW tool and enabler. Forget his policies, and focus on political gamesmanship.

HHS announces free birth control for women in the U.S.

Senator Sanders on new fuel standards

Breaking: President Endorses DOMA Repeal Bill on Eve of Senate Hearings.

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

It's why someone like Robert Reich can write this:

"A president can be forgiven for compromising, if his supporters understand why he is doing so. That the health-care law doesn't include a public option, that financial reform doesn't limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks, even that cuts may have to be made to Medicare or Social Security -- all could be accepted in light of the practical necessities of politics, if only we understood where the president is leading us."

Translation, we could accept shitty policies in return for red meat!

Forget that Obama is one of the most successful Presidents in terms of progressive legislation in a generation. Don't you miss Clinton?

[Major Hogwash]

31. So do you think . . .

That we'll see a billboard with Bubba holding his thumb up with the caption, "Miss me yet?" anytime soon?

:rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

16. More PUMA divide and conquer -

"Wasn't Clinton the bestest?"

"Don'tcha miss him?"

"Sigh, I wish Hillary was president now!"

Loop and loop and loop and repeat.


:eyes:

[bluestate10]

33. Par for the course with some DU members. When they are not at the Firedog Lake

echo chamber.

[BlueCheese]

37. Nobody brought up Hillary other than you.

Praising Bill doesn't mean praising Hillary.

[AngkorWot]

34. Clinton cut welfare.

But, hey, Clinton's white.

Stay classy, GD.

[BlueCheese]

40. You're right.

Any opposition to Obama must be because of racism.

[BlueCheese]

36. Bill Clinton was a terrible president.

Sure, he stared down the Republicans over a government shutdown and the debt ceiling increase. And it's true that while he was president, we had a balanced budget, higher taxes on the rich, very low unemployment, low inflation, and an increase in the median household income. And sure, we were mostly at peace, without any long, expensive wars going on.

But have you forgotten that eight years after he left office, we had a huge economic meltdown? Surely that must be his fault, right? And I'm pretty sure he had Vince Foster killed too.

[fujiyama]

42. A few differences between what Clinton faced and what Obama has to deal with

Clinton did indeed tell the republicans he would not be held hostage to economic blackmail and actually vetoed legislation they had pushed through. Eventually however, the republicans folded. This is different today because it's obvious the teabagger congress was not going to fold unless they got what they wanted. Obama is dealing with an even more radical and extreme republican congress than even the one that impeached Clinton.

Also, it was tough for republicans to make the case that deficits would cause economic harm - mainly because things were going quite well at the time. The US economy was roaring and there were rapid breakthroughs in new technology, namely the internet. The teabaggers can now make the case (however absurd) that the deficit and spending (mainly as a result of Bush's spending spree and tax cuts) is the cause for the prolonged downturn and potential double dip recession.

Ultimately, I also think that Obama has poor negotiating skills and starts off the process by willing to give in on key points. His notion that he could "stay above the fray" and "act like an adult" made it look as though leadership and direction was lacking. And having already shown a willingness to compromise under threats, when they didn't hold power, the GOP rightly realized they could get away with what they wanted. But this is a larger problem with democrats in general. They seem to follow the opposite of the old TR adage of "speaking softly but carrying a big stick".

Oh and Obama's black.

[boston bean]

46. many of those fuckers that impeached him would probably be tea party members today.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Bill Clinton was the best President of my lifetime.

Peace, prosperity, 39.6% tax rate on the rich, and he ate Republicans for lunch.