Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (18889)	7/23/2001 6:48:26 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Why does Clinton keep coming up? Because he was the last Democratic President and he seems to be considered an excellent Presidentr by many on this thread. Reasonable answer. But compare against his strengths as well as weaknesses. How many young women has Bush molested? I have no idea. Is this your only criterion of character? Foreign Policy? How much Foreign Policy experience did the GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS acquire??? Plenty. He also began well, rather than beginning by being abrasive and taking stances apparently designed to annoy allies, partners and enemies alike. If the Europeans love that treaty so much WHY DIDN'T THEY RATIFY IT??? Because they didn't have time. In democratic societies treaties need to go through the legislature, be discussed and the best steps planned. They don't get torn up by executive fiat. How about that genius Governor of Georgia James Carter? Not only did he know nothing about it, HE DIDN'T LEARN ANYHTING! The Egyptians and Jordanians might well say otherwise. As would others in the ME, had the impetus been continued. He's more respected than most recent presidents overseas (but maybe you count that as a bad point?). The most knowledgeable on en entering office was undoubtedly Richard Nixon. What's your opinion of him? An underhand crook who nevertheless had the sense to call off US participation in the Vietnam war. I'm not aware of his other foreign policies... it's before my time, I'm afraid. contributions to party coffers or sheer length of service You bring this up with respect to Clinton-Gore????? GIMME A BREAK! Ah, but if this was proclaimed as such a bad thing, why has Bush done it so much more? It's surely worse if you proclaim something as unethical and then still go ahead and do it yourself. Why are so many of the senior diplomatic posts, especially those in desirable regions, being given not to diplomats but to huge Republican contributors? capacity for independent thought. Great sloganeering. Clinton had a different set of vested interests pushing him. He was quite subservient to them. I'm aware of a strong Israel lobby. He didn't seem wildly subservient to the Unions. What else? If the answer is 'consumer lobbies', or similar, I'd rather see those... business is quite rich and powerful enough in today's society, don't you think? Remember Bernie Schwartz? Actually, no... who, what and when? And remember, two wrongs do not make a right. (not even a right-winger). So if it was decried at the time, why perpetuate the wrong-doing and compound it with hypocrisy? On the list of personal characteristics, I'd say Clinton showed them well in his work in NI, attempts at arranging peace deals in the Middle East, negotiations with China, and similar. For obvious reasons I can't comment so much on his work at home, but as I understand it he has effectively less direct influence on home affairs anyhow? Clinton comes across as more ready to understand the 'other side', and to make deals acceptable - however the actual substance went; and these perceptions are paramount in communication, especially internationally. I'm undecided on the way Bush handled the spy plane thing... he doesn't seem to have got much out of it (unless you seriously think the Chinese would have kept the crew?!), and he lost face by blustering at first, and then - oddly- going quiet as it became clearer that the Chinese pilot ws primarily to blame for the immediate collision, IMO. I think he might have done better by adopting a more conciliatory attitude at first - while conceding no more. Kyoto was internationally negotiated - not set by the Europeans. The US had a large part to play in watering down the original targets, which would were far more radical. (Unrealistically so? Possibly. Unnecessarily so? Hmmm.). Is it unfair to suggest that a nation with 5% of world population which consumes 25%+ of the world's energy might have to play a larger part? If China or India were to use energy at that rate, could you deny them? Of course, that would mean that each would consume more than 100% of world oil production, at current rates. And emit more than 3X the greenhouse gases of the US, even were they as efficient. Now there's nothing at all to hold them back or indicate to them that there's any pressure to clean up. Europe would have to reform nearly as much as the US, BTW... more, for some smaller countries. However no country will go it alone and so weaken itself while economic competitors are under no such constraint. It's a win-lose game, where the individual rewards for being the only 'cheat' are greater than those in the win-win; but theory dictates that if one disobeys, all will then follow... that's lose-lose.