From: Howard Brazee on 12 Aug 2010 20:20 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:26:00 -0400, Horvath1758(a)net.net wrote: >>Well immoderate, why don't you spell it out for everyone? If you've >>forgotten, the argument was that Clinton was an effective President > >He was impeached. How many effective presidents get impeached? To answer that question we need to look at the criteria that we use to decide whether a president is effective. Some candidates: 1. Not having a war that isn't ending with victory. 2. Balancing the budget. 3. Getting your new program passed. In these, he was 2/3 successful. His health care program was more liberal than those proposed by Republican presidents, while Obama's plan was more conservative than their proposals. As a fiscal conservative, I would rank Balance the Budget highly in my measurements. I'll say he was effective - at least compared to presidents who don't balance the budget. So, the answer is 1. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 13 Aug 2010 07:43 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:52:59 -0400, Horvath1758(a)net.net wrote: >He was convicted of perjury, impeached, and disbarred. He spent his >last days in the White House in disgrace. None of your lies will >change this. The question was - how many people like that were effective presidents? To answer that, we need to have criteria for being an effective president. I used the criterion of a balanced budget (is that one of my lies?). What criteria would you use to determine the answer to that question? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: BAR on 13 Aug 2010 07:56 In article <clark-C68C0C.07522913082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > So then why do you care what goes on behind the closed door of the WH? > > > > > > Oh, yes, I remember, it was a Democrat. > > > > Newt got canned by Republicans. Nobody is defending his actions. You on > > the other hand continue the apology tour. Case closed. > > No, Newt is posing himself as the darling of the right, and is being > received as such. The hypocrisy tour goes on. Case wide open. > Newt isn't going anywhere, he is damaged goods.
From: Moderate on 13 Aug 2010 08:10 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26cefd4cd2561d6498a1f5(a)news.giganews.com... > > When are the Dems going to throw Rangel and Waters under the bus. Doing > so would save them a couple of seats in November. They don't have to throw them under the bus, but it would be nice if they stopped having rallies for them.
From: Moderate on 13 Aug 2010 08:53
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-C68C0C.07522913082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article > <1427564051303355565.467835nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: >> >> Newt got canned by Republicans. Nobody is defending his actions. You on >> the other hand continue the apology tour. Case closed. > > No, Newt is posing himself as the darling of the right, and is being > received as such. The hypocrisy tour goes on. Case wide open. So Newt getting canned means nothing? Nice double standard. Now you grab at straws and come up empty. |