"people do blame Clinton"
That's pretty amusing.
Are these the same folks that talk about issues being "on Clinton's watch", but avoid the comparison with the Bush "watch" for the following:
Recession
War
Stock Market plunge
Largest Business Scandals
Largest Terrorism event
... and as John Stewart said, "and that's just his first year!"
That's a little humor there, but the point is - scapegoating can go too far and be completely umproductive, particularly when unwilling to talk about a single, specific detail in enough length to get any real clarity.
To blame an ex-president for a wide generality seems to be a sport among those who can't figure how to connect the dots to responsibility of the current administration.
I mean, it's pretty clear Reagan created $4 trillion in debt. Whether that expenditure caused the fall of the Soviet Union is worthy of debate.
Saying Clinton "gutted" the military is another debate - this was supposed to be the Peace Dividend, and we got it, and still had the horsepower to quickly subdue Afghanistan on a moment's notice. Whether other expenditures weren't done and needed to be is worthy of debate.
Saying 8 years of increasing prosperity and paying down the debt is ... well, I guess that's to someone's credit. You would think the sitting pres would have something to do with that, but I've hear that was either Reagan, Bush, or an accident, all of which are debatable.
and so on...
Not to contribute to the notion that somehow Clinton is important anymore, but his popularity in the proverbial "recent poll" is as ridiculous as the current:
Q:Who's the Greatest President?
Lincoln 20%
Kennedy 14%
Bush 13%
Clinton 8%
The funny part is Clinton had 9% last year. Bush's gains came at the expense of Reagan, mostly...
Wonder who those people are?
abcnews.go.com |
