[Nesster]

Clinton was the offspring of the original neo-conservatives: democrats who questioned the methods and effectiveness of the Great Society. Later of course the neo-cons became what they are now.

And Reagan, despite the rhetoric, by and large governed as a centrist.

Clinton was the offspring of the original neo-conservatives: democrats who questioned the methods and effectiveness of the Great Society. Later of course the neo-cons became what they are now.

And Reagan, despite the rhetoric, by and large governed as a centrist.

People toss around "neo-con". What the hell is a "neo-con" anyway. Me? I am a fiscal conservative. A Reagan Conservative, if you will. Be responsible, good stewardship, of other people's money. And that's what taxes and all of government money is. It's other people's money and we need to spend it wisely. Haven't seen that in a long time though. And that's W as well as, and more so the Obaminator.

[GeneV]

And Reagan, despite the rhetoric, by and large governed as a centrist.

I'd appreciate hearing the factual support for that statement. Reagan gave the defense dept. a huge financial boost, followed an aggressively antisoviet policy, actively supported revolutions against left-leaning governments, broke a government union, changed the tax code to tax the rich far less and the poor far more, began deregulating banks (effectively deregulating S&Ls out of existence), modified antitrust enforcement leading to a merger mania, revoked energy programs, proposed or nominated very conservative judges, I could go on.. What did he do or propose that one might call "liberal" to balance all that out to "moderate?"

His governing seems moderate only in comparison to his extreme rhetoric, but not in comparison to his Democratic or Republican predecessors or even successors.

I'd appreciate hearing the factual support for that statement. Reagan gave the defense dept. a huge financial boost, followed an aggressively antisoviet policy, actively supported revolutions against left-leaning governments, broke a government union, changed the tax code to tax the rich far less and the poor far more, began deregulating banks (effectively deregulating S&Ls out of existence), modified antitrust enforcement leading to a merger mania, revoked energy programs, proposed or nominated very conservative judges, I could go on.. What did he do or propose that one might call "liberal" to balance all that out to "moderate?"

His governing seems moderate only in comparison to his extreme rhetoric, but not in comparison to his Democratic or Republican predecessors or even successors.

Reagan had no choice after Jimmy decimated our military.
And wasn't it Jimmy that actually started the deregulation?
Isn't it actually against the law for government workers to even have a union? (Actually I think it's just illegal for them to go on strike) (I remember back in HS that when teachers went on strike they were penalized 3 to 1. Every day they were on strike they lost 3 days pay.)

The Railway Labor Act bans strikes by United States airline and railroad employees except in narrowly defined circumstances. The National Labor Relations Act generally permits strikes, but provides a mechanism to enjoin strikes in industries in which a strike would create a national emergency. The federal government most recently invoked these statutory provisions to obtain an injunction requiring the International Longshore and Warehouse Union return to work in 2002 after having been locked out by the employer group, the Pacific Maritime Association.

Some jurisdictions prohibit all strikes by public employees, under laws such as the "Taylor Law" in New York. Other jurisdictions impose strike bans only on certain categories of workers, particularly those regarded as critical to society: police and firefighters are among the groups commonly barred from striking in these jurisdictions. Some states, such as Michigan, Iowa or Florida, do not allow teachers in public schools to strike. Workers have sometimes circumvented these restrictions by falsely claiming inability to work due to illness — this is sometimes called a "sickout" or "blue flu", the latter receiving its name from the uniforms worn by police officers, who are traditionally prohibited from striking. The term "red flu" has sometimes been used to describe this action when undertaken by firefighters.

Postal workers involved in 1978 wildcat strikes in Jersey City, Kearny, New Jersey, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. were fired under the presidency of Jimmy Carter, and President Ronald Reagan terminated air traffic controllers and the PATCO union after the air traffic controllers' strike of 1981.

[GeneV]

Reagan had no choice after Jimmy decimated our military.
And wasn't it Jimmy that actually started the deregulation?
Isn't it actually against the law for government workers to even have a union? (Actually I think it's just illegal for them to go on strike) (I remember back in HS that when teachers went on strike they were penalized 3 to 1. Every day they were on strike they lost 3 days pay.)

Deregulation is usually considered a conservative principle. Carter started to deregulate airlines, but that sounds more like an argument that Jimmy Carter was moderate than that Reagan was a conservative.

To me, a "moderate" is someone who supports a significant proportion of principles or actions from those which we tend to call conservative and also from those which we tend to call liberal.

I don't know of too many actions which Reagan supported that would be considered in the liberal direction, but I am open to learning.

[Parallax]

On what issues was Clinton liberal? I've seen issue by issue comparisons that have Clinton coming out more conservative than Nixon. Welfare reform, actually cutting the size of government, NAFTA, deregulation of banks, and on and on are Republican canards that were enacted with Clinton's support. The only truly significant liberal thing he ever tried was health care reform, and he backed off of it and never came back.

Personally, I don't think Bill Clinton had a firm ideology other than to get re-elected.

The "assault" weapons (you know, the ones that FBI and other crime statistics showed were very rarely used by criminals to assault anybody) ban is one issue. Some of the criteria for banning or not banning a weapon was cosmetic, having nothing to do with its lethality or suitability for any purpose. If that isn't classic liberal, I don't know what is.
Another is the one that you mentioned; health care.
There was that little issue of gutting the military to the point we were, by previous standards, nearly defenseless.
His approach to the illegal aliens was to make them legal. (those who had been breaking the law for a long enough time, that is.)
Clinton was not nearly as far left of center as the majority of Congress is today, but he was a liberal. As far as his only firm ideology being to get re-elected; that really doesn't set him apart from any politician in office today or in recent memory with one notable exception, so I don't hold that against him.

[GeneV]

The "assault" weapons (you know, the ones that FBI and other crime statistics showed were very rarely used by criminals to assault anybody) ban is one issue. Some of the criteria for banning or not banning a weapon was cosmetic, having nothing to do with its lethality or suitability for any purpose. If that isn't classic liberal, I don't know what is.
Another is the one that you mentioned; health care.
There was that little issue of gutting the military to the point we were, by previous standards, nearly defenseless.
His approach to the illegal aliens was to make them legal. (those who had been breaking the law for a long enough time, that is.)
Clinton was not nearly as far left of center as the majority of Congress is today, but he was a liberal. As far as his only firm ideology being to get re-elected; that really doesn't set him apart from any politician in office today or in recent memory with one notable exception, so I don't hold that against him.

OK, so we have a significant number of conservative and liberal issues for Clinton. That is a good definition of "moderate." As an aside I would disagree that the illegal alien issue is either conservative or liberal, because I can't get a clear read on the official position of either side on immigration. Each "side" has factions which are very tough on immigration and very lax.

To call Clinton a "liberal," you have to presume a political and moral compass in that man that I find lacking, but YMMV.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 06-17-2010 at 08:23 AM.

The "assault" weapons (you know, the ones that FBI and other crime statistics showed were very rarely used by criminals to assault anybody) ban is one issue. Some of the criteria for banning or not banning a weapon was cosmetic, having nothing to do with its lethality or suitability for any purpose. If that isn't classic liberal, I don't know what is.
Another is the one that you mentioned; health care.
There was that little issue of gutting the military to the point we were, by previous standards, nearly defenseless.
His approach to the illegal aliens was to make them legal. (those who had been breaking the law for a long enough time, that is.)
Clinton was not nearly as far left of center as the majority of Congress is today, but he was a liberal. As far as his only firm ideology being to get re-elected; that really doesn't set him apart from any politician in office today or in recent memory with one notable exception, so I don't hold that against him.

That, as we have seen didn't work at all. And they now want to do it again.

---------- Post added 06-17-2010 at 10:28 AM ----------

Deregulation is usually considered a conservative principle. Carter started to deregulate airlines, but that sounds more like an argument that Jimmy Carter was moderate than that Reagan was a conservative.

To me, a "moderate" is someone who supports a significant proportion of principles or actions from those which we tend to call conservative and also from those which we tend to call liberal.

I don't know of too many actions which Reagan supported that would be considered in the liberal direction, but I am open to learning.

Gene I am most assuredly a conservative. Yet I do firmly believe that there are certain areas that need government regulation. Banking is just one of them. The medical field would be another. I also believe that there are certain things that need to be done by the government. Military and roads being just two of those things.

[Parallax]

To call Clinton a "liberal," you have to presume a political and moral compass in that man that I find lacking, but YMMV.

I certainly have to give you that one, Gene.

[GeneV]

Gene I am most assuredly a conservative. Yet I do firmly believe that there are certain areas that need government regulation. Banking is just one of them. The medical field would be another. I also believe that there are certain things that need to be done by the government. Military and roads being just two of those things.

Makes sense. That is why I don't think enough of the things Reagan did which may vary from strict conservative principles would turn him into a "moderate."

Clinton did govern as a moderate. He really did not accomplish much or even try very much in areas which one would call liberal. He enacted no big government programs of any significance, but he did work with a conservative congress to balance the budget, cut welfare, cut the number of jobs in government, enact free trade principles, deregulate, etc.

Makes sense. That is why I don't think enough of the things Reagan did which may vary from strict conservative principles would turn him into a "moderate."

Clinton did govern as a moderate. He really did not accomplish much or even try very much in areas which one would call liberal. He enacted no big government programs of any significance, but he did work with a conservative congress to balance the budget, cut welfare, cut the number of jobs in government, enact free trade principles, deregulate, etc.

He didn't simply because he couldn't.

The budget was balanced in spite of him. Not because of him

[GeneV]

He didn't simply because he couldn't.

The budget was balanced in spite of him. Not because of him

Care to add some factual support for that conclusion? Were these measures passed over his objection or veto?

I'm no fan of Clinton, as you can tell from my previous comment. However, I haven't seen the indication that he was a very liberal Democrat. He was a DLC Dem. The premise of the DLC was that they were less liberal than the rest of the party. He ran as a moderate "third way" Democrat and he governed that way.

Who knows what the man believed (if anything) in his heart and would have done if it would have gotten him elected.

[Parallax]

In some ways, Clinton was less liberal than W.
With apologies to my fellow conservatives- if I had to choose between having GWB back or Slick Willie .........

[northcoastgreg]

He didn't simply because he couldn't.

The budget was balanced in spite of him. Not because of him

While Clinton can be given credit for signing the budget bills that helped balance the budgets, the factors that made the balanced budget possible had little to do with Clinton or any of his policies. The three most important factors behind balancing the budget were:

1. Tax receipts generated by the nineties Stock Market/Credit Bubble Economy.

2. The so-called "peace dividend."

3. A Republican Congress that was less fiscally irresponsible than the Democratic Congresses.

Now Clinton had nothing to do with #2, his role in #3 was unintended and ironical, and his role in #1 (rather limited: had a lot more to do with Greenspan) was nothing to be proud of, as it was simply the beginning of the bubble economy that has led to the current recession.

[GeneV]

While Clinton can be given credit for signing the budget bills that helped balance the budgets, the factors that made the balanced budget possible had little to do with Clinton or any of his policies. The three most important factors behind balancing the budget were:

1. Tax receipts generated by the nineties Stock Market/Credit Bubble Economy.

2. The so-called "peace dividend."

3. A Republican Congress that was less fiscally irresponsible than the Democratic Congresses.

Now Clinton had nothing to do with #2, his role in #3 was unintended and ironical, and his role in #1 (rather limited: had a lot more to do with Greenspan) was nothing to be proud of, as it was simply the beginning of the bubble economy that has led to the current recession.

Whether Clinton or any other president can take credit for the economy is really beside the point, though about whether Clinton governed as a moderate. Clinton fully supported cutting welfare, cutting the size of government (nonmilitary and military), NAFTA, deregulation, etc. He proposed exactly one big liberal program and then ran away from it as if it were on fire.

Point number 3 is highly dubious. According to the CBO, during the years before Clinton, the budgets that the Democratic congress passed resulted in deficits that were less than those which would have resulted had the Reagan/Bush budgets been passed as proposed. The truth is that congress was more responsible than the presidents prior to Clinton.

---------- Post added 06-17-2010 at 07:00 PM ----------

In some ways, Clinton was less liberal than W.
With apologies to my fellow conservatives- if I had to choose between having GWB back or Slick Willie .........

Then again, to acknowledge some of what has been said by the previous (conservative?) poster said, the congress of the 90s did have something to do with it. I have strong disagreements with Gingrich, and the shutting down of government, hunting the president, etc. But the Republicans of the 90s had not yet become the entrenched corrupt politicians that they were in 2000-2006. I wonder if some of the failings of GWB would have been as severe if his Republican congress had been fresh, fervent and independent.