Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Polls show Bill Clinton would be elected Mayor of New York City in a landslide.
March 11, 2001 3:12 PM   Subscribe

Polls show Bill Clinton would be elected Mayor of New York City in a landslide. No Democratic or Republican challenger would come within a mile of him. Would solve his little "office budget" problem, too, and get him and Hillary back in public housing in NYC! So long, Chappaqua...
posted by MattD (45 comments total)

 
After Hillary pre-empting a raft of ambitious Democrats from the Senate race, Bill doing the same to the four Democrats who've been waiting their entire lives to run for Mayor may make those fellows wish that they'd backed Bob Kerrey for the nomination in 1992.

(Although, interesting, Bob Kerrey is also a New Yorker now, as President of the New School.)
posted by MattD at 3:12 PM on March 11, 2001


after supporting his lying ass through scandal after scandal, I can think of no city that is more deserving of the chaos he would create as a mayor than nyc. Hollywood and DC come close though...
posted by justkurt at 3:38 PM on March 11, 2001


Sorry, Justkurt, but for all his odd behavior--and look at Newt et al--he led the country out of huge deficit, brought peace pretty much to Ireland, and did much that many (no you I expect) are thankful for.
In passing, he would not dump on the arts as anti-Catholic while forgetting his long-term adulterous affair as somehow morally correct.
For better or worse, The Big Apple is still the number one city in the world. It is the place wehre the biggest and the best go, make it or fail. Let's see (should he run) if he will make it or not. Time to put the Clinton thing behind and look at what the new guy in the White House will or will not do for us. I am for giving W a chance to show what he can do.
posted by Postroad at 3:58 PM on March 11, 2001


Hmm.. headline - 'Bill Clinon cleans up New York'
posted by tiaka at 3:58 PM on March 11, 2001


I agree justkurt and partly with Postroad. Let's just put the Clinton thing behind us and get rid of their names out of our headlines. I'm so sick of hearing the next scandal. Come on people, we're not going to get them for nothing. People want to talk about teflon president with Reagan, come on, he has nothing on the most corrupt administration we just had.

And when it comes to NYC, let them have him, they can have Hillary also. Let's see what she does to clean up the place like other politicians have just done. I remember her acceptance speech, the largest cheer she got was when she said she'd fight for women's rights to kill their unborn children. Yeah, that's a city I could care less about.
posted by the_0ne at 5:58 PM on March 11, 2001


when Bill Clinton starts secret wars in South America, he'll come close to being the scum Reagan/Bush are.
posted by owillis at 6:35 PM on March 11, 2001


Secret wars, what are you talking about, he didn't have to keep it secret, he was good enough to make the moron sheeple think that the albanians really needed him over there to be saved from the kosovars. What's amazing is the sheeple still supported him in that action and it ends up that our forces killed more albanians during the action than the kosovars did.

And like I've said before, if the dem's had any balls at all, there would have been no reason to hide what was right all along.

Thank God for Reagan/Bush, at very least there were some morals in our country for that span of time, then came the family that planted themselves in our country and will definitely never leave, just like a virus.
posted by the_0ne at 6:57 PM on March 11, 2001


Teflon Ron was a much better nickname than Slick Willie if you ask me (but we Arkansans came up with the latter... what do you expect, really?). Dubya needs a similarly non-stick nick. Any ideas?
posted by daveadams at 7:05 PM on March 11, 2001


postoroad--

I don't where to begin? Lets see, Clinton reduced the deficit? If you can make a case for him having any real responsibly for that alt all, it is only due to his occasional policy hijacks from more fiscally conservative Republican.

And I think it is really reaching to suggest that whatever temporary peace has occurred over last few years in Ireland are the due to Clinton. It's been more as case of two punch-drunk opponents letting each up on each other for awhile than any real "peace."

As a citizen of NYC myself, I have very little to be thank Mr. Clinton for -- Mr. Guiliani yes, a bull market yes, but Clinton no.

By ANY standard, NYC is a safer, cleaner place for people of ALL colors to live thanks to Giuliani's get-tough pollicies.

Who's been the major beneficiary of this? Mostly poor and minority folks, whose neighborhoods have seen unprecedented, drops in crime. You wouldn't know that from the media however.

The truth is white liberals make sure that the neighborhoods they sleep in are always safe. They don’t like it so much when minorities are afforded the same protection, however.

And as a person who's religiously agnostic and socially-libertarian, I'm not a big fan of Guiliani's battles with the art world either, but the fact is this:

If the art in question were denigrating any group other than Christians, it would NEVER have been put up in the first place. You know that's true.

Guiliani's real sin has been the obnoxious way he presents himself to the media. While I agree he comes off as a typically nasty native NYer, the reality is he has made NYC a safe place for literally millions of people, most of them minorities, to live.

And as far as NYC being "number one city in the world", well the truth is that just sounds idiotic. I mean, what the fuck does it even mean? It's about as idiotic as people who chanted "USA #1!" at anti-Iran rallies in the 80s.

Yes, NYC is an exciting, energizing place, but you should get over yourself. It isn't the end all-be all of everything. You might want to consider geetting out of the Upper West side a little bit more. Fresh air from soemwhere other than Manhattan and the Hamptons might do you some good.

posted by justkurt at 7:18 PM on March 11, 2001


As a New York City resident and a huge fan of Rudy Giuliani, I must admit that I actually wouldn't mind the Clinton thing at all ... I'm a Republican, but I think that Bill is significantly more conservative than any of the four Democrats in the race.

Hevesi and Vallone, my Queens homies, would probably both do a decent job, but Green or Ferrer would both be unmitigated disasters. Particularly now that the bloom is off the economy, we need a good middle-reliever to keep the heat on, not somebody who'll put the NYPD on the bench...
posted by MattD at 7:45 PM on March 11, 2001


Funny thing about the last note. Conservatives who slam NYC as Amoral City No. 1 as if part of an American jihad never consider that many conservatives live there too. (Tom Wolfe, anyone? Does Buckley still live there?) Then liberals in NYC (or, I'm guessing, would like to live there or maybe lived there for a year or so and have caught an awfully pretentious fever) take to slamming people "between the coasts" and in rural areas, never knowing that they're slamming a hell of a lot of allies in the process, not to mention so many minority voters. Pick on people for geographical reasons if you must, but you might want to consider keeping politics out of your insults. Yes, someone from a particular area may go along with you in having the place slammed, but three out of four times, at least, no go.
posted by raysmj at 7:53 PM on March 11, 2001


raysmj -- I definitely hear what you're saying, but NYC liberals are a particularly strident/vocal/attention-grabbing lot.

Media coverage paints NYC as a single united cadre of Dems goose-stepping down Broadway, eager to show the ignoramuses in in "fly-over land" (not my term) how things should really be run.

As such, I completely understand (and somewhat emphasize) with folks who wish the loud-mouthed Manhattanites would just sink into the Atlantic.

posted by justkurt at 8:05 PM on March 11, 2001


oops. for geographic accuracy, I should have actually said "sink into the Hudson."
posted by justkurt at 8:14 PM on March 11, 2001


Is this all NYC liberals, or just a certain brand of them. Frankly, some of your NY liberal columnists, which is mostly what I know of NY liberalism, are very tough, very old school (Breslin, the late Lars Eric-Nelson, etc.). The papers seem populated by folks who've been there a long time, though, as opposed to the Times (which isn't by any means always so liberal, but is too often condescending) and the magazines, which are in many cases populated by people who live in what becomes the media version of New York. And I sometimes wonder if those folks talk with anyone besides themselves. Even the conservatives they let in are regulars. They congratulate each other and play up one another's work, oh I know so and so and look what he writes about today in blah blah. All very incestuous. Then there are the academics. But I'll stop there.
posted by raysmj at 8:18 PM on March 11, 2001


Kurt, your posts above are some of the absolute best examples I've ever seen of projection. That is, giving a group or someone else negative attributes that one has internalized or finds repulsive.

Allow me.

The truth is white liberals make sure that the neighborhoods they sleep in are always safe. They don’t like it so much when minorities are afforded the same protection, however.

Well, that’s just stupid. Check this out:

The truth is white conservatives make sure that the neighborhoods they sleep in are always safe. They don’t like it so much when minorities are afforded the same protection, however.

Equally untrue, equally repugnant.

If the art in question were denigrating any group other than Christians, it would NEVER have been put up in the first place. You know that's true.

Wow. No average person would say “Black Jesus” or Ofili’s “Virgin Mary” denigrated Christians. In fact, just the opposite happened. One old man, in an antagonized spurt of anger, defaced Ofili’s work. Most everybody else, including the courts didn’t think much of the piece. Guiliani certainly doesn’t understand art. He once said if he could make something it wasn’t art, but that doesn’t make any sense. Artistic expression is open to all human beings. It’s part of what makes us humans.

The other part of the statement, which should have read “commented on any other group”, is equally false. Tibor Kalman, may he rest in piece, made a huge splash with the fourth issue of Colors magazine. In it, he depicted Spike Lee and Michael Jackson as white men. Now, under your strangely unrealistic assertion, that “art” which “denigrat[ed] any group other than Christians” would never be “put up” and Tibor would have been blacklisted. Well, I hate to inform you — scratch that — I’m proud to inform you, Tibor Kalman was lauded in the media for being couragous enough to make these sorts of statements. He even appeared on the Today Show and showed what Couric and Gumbel would look like if they switched ethnicities. Now, if only Guiliani would’ve had the same reaction Katie did, he wouldn’t have come off as such a schmuck.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:05 PM on March 11, 2001


when Bill Clinton starts secret wars in South America, he'll come close to being the scum Reagan/Bush are.

ahem.
posted by locombia at 10:15 PM on March 11, 2001


ahem.

ahem. :cough - oil war:


I could go on, but my throat hurts.
posted by owillis at 11:22 PM on March 11, 2001


> Dubya needs a similarly non-stick nick. Any ideas?

It has to be something to do with oil and slipperiness and dumbness. I know nothing about motor oil, so let me know where I go astray, but here's my shot at this:

Give W a nickname based on the W rating given to motor oil.
• The letter W for obvious reasons.
• Oil for obvious corporate-ownership-of-his-soul reasons, and of course because it's slippery; get it all over any given swine and he's going to be, well, a greased pig at a hillbilly fair.
• The W rating because that indicates oil's viscosity, which, essentially, is thickness.
So it's just a matter of choosing the right numbers.

But maybe it's too hard to turn this into a nickname for the SOB (son of Bush) himself. Instead, could we use it to rate his programs?

Or is this all just a little too obscure?

Nevermind.

Next!
posted by pracowity at 11:52 PM on March 11, 2001


owillis, I'm not trying to say that one is better or worse than the other. Obviously they both have their sins and I am no Dem-hater, Bush-lover or vice-versa.

Just wanted to set the record straight.
posted by locombia at 2:37 AM on March 12, 2001


Thank God for Reagan/Bush, at very least there were some morals in our country for that span of time

please don't post such silliness so early in the morning, i just snorted coffee up my nose i was laughing so hard.
posted by saralovering at 6:46 AM on March 12, 2001


Senator Hillary Clinton? Mayor Bill Clinton? Former Sen. Al D'Amato?

Will you New Yorkers please quit slamming us Southerners for electing corrupt, buffoonish politicans? Thanks in advance.
posted by darren at 8:08 AM on March 12, 2001


'Dubya' D-40
posted by OneBallJay at 8:25 AM on March 12, 2001


cap'n:

For the record, I never suggested that Christians were offended because of the race of the Jesus figure in the shots. My suspicion is that they were more offended by the fact that she was naked.

I'm not a Christian and wasn’t offended by the shots, but I believe that Christians have a right to publicly express that they were offended by it without being shouted down as uncultured, ignorant cretins.

And, BTW, what does you mean when you suggest that certain folks don't "understand" art -- are you suggesting that there's one officially sanctioned view that we're supposed to take when viewing a piece of art? If so, please post a hyperlink to these rules so we can all be enlightened.

As for the safe neighborhood issue, check your facts: vociferous white liberals make sure the Upper West side is safe, yet bitterly complain any time the police make a special effort to target high crime neighborhoods like Harlem and the Bronx -- it's usually criticized a racial profiling.




posted by justkurt at 9:56 AM on March 12, 2001


Art is just one letter removed from fart.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:01 AM on March 12, 2001


please don't post such silliness so early in the morning, i just snorted coffee up my nose i was laughing so hard.

saralovering, please go back and count the number of Columbines that we had during the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle years. Go back and also count how many L.A. riots we've had where the low-lifes that started it were just let off the hook. Also, even though Bush defamed himself and repealled his "No new taxes" also go back and note that after the Clinton/Gore years we are now paying the highest taxes we have ever paid. Also, go back and count how many mistresses Reagan and Bush had during their marriages and of course was also let go by their wives. (The 'I'm not a stand-by-your-man woman.' farse) I mean 5 of these infidelities were proven and people still love that P.O.S.. Sorry, but when America and the world looks back on the clinton years in maybe 10 or 20 years I hope people wake up and see what kind of a scum they were.

So, again...

Thank God for the Reagan/Bush years, at least we had some morality back in those days.
posted by the_0ne at 10:45 AM on March 12, 2001


to Justkurt: this may surprise you and your quick labeling of me as a West side New Yorker. I don't even live in New York state.
If the mayor did all you said he has done for NY, then he must have also done the same for most of the other cities in our country, since they all seem to have gotten a lot better. I have no problem with the present mayor, though as you say he can irritate. But then Clinton can unite, something NY also in need of.
NY is the world capital for publishing, theatre, Wall street firms, and just about anything else you can name. Ask Frankie: if you can make it in NY you can make it anywhere else. (of course does not have film industry as in Hollywood.) It remains the jazz capital, museum captial etc etc.
And dare I mention the Yankees?
posted by Postroad at 10:58 AM on March 12, 2001


Give W a nickname based on the W rating given to motor oil.
What about a multiweight oil? 10-W-30 flows easily at low temperatures, but thickens up when the heat is on.
Thus: George 10-Dubya-30 Bush.
Just adjust the first number downward to get a smoother flowing Dubya when everything's cool, and adjust the higher number upward to get a thicker Dubya when things get hot. Or vice versa, depending on your opinion of the Prez. (BTW - if you think that President Bush acts the same under all conditions, use a single weight number, high or low depending on peference.)
This would also lend itself to calls for an oil change around election time.
Pracowity - absolutely brilliant idea!

posted by iceberg273 at 11:03 AM on March 12, 2001


Peference! It's a government word!What I meant was preference.
posted by iceberg273 at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2001


...as opposed to perforce?
posted by darren at 11:25 AM on March 12, 2001


Thank God for the Reagan/Bush years, at least we had some morality back in those days.

Oh lordy, its revisionist history time again. How many Regan/Bush appointees/cabinet members went to jail?? How many holes did the pair of them try and drive through the US Constitution? How many people did Bush pardon so *he* couldn't be prosecuted for their administration's illegal actions?? How much did of a role did they play in turning the world's largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation?

What a curious definition of "morality" you have.

we are now paying the highest taxes we have ever paid

Grow up. You have to pay back all money you borrowed as debt under Regan and Bush: it's called financial probity [aka the chickens returning home to roost].
posted by theparanoidandroid at 11:33 AM on March 12, 2001


Dear the_One,
Thank you for adding a little humor to my day. I appreciate it not only for the chuckles, but also the knowlege that I am not the only one out there that tends to be rather naive and trusting and blind to the faults of those in politics who they happen to admire.

posted by saralovering at 11:34 AM on March 12, 2001


the_0ne---to address the comic high point of your little rant there---you aren't saying Columbine was the fault of the Clintons?

tell me you're not *that* disconnected from reality.

If in fact you *are*, then, can we blame Geedubyah for Santee? Or are you saying that now that there's a Republican in the White House all these nasty school shootings will stop? Maybe no one told the folks in Santee there was a new president yet? Just don't tell them he's from Texas. They *love* guns down there, yknow.
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:07 PM on March 12, 2001


Grow up. You have to pay back all money you borrowed as debt under Regan and Bush: it's called financial probity [aka the chickens returning home to roost]

Ok theparanoidandroid, if that is true, then why do we have such a large surplus. Is it because maybe Clinton was using the fuzzy math that he was good at? If he was paying off Reagan/Bush's deficit, then how did we get so many extra zero's? Maybe the truth is the deficit was never that bad and the dem's are, as usual, blowing everything out of proportion.

Thank you for adding a little humor to my day. I appreciate it not only for the chuckles, but also the knowlege that I am not the only one out there that tends to be rather naive and trusting and blind to the faults of those in politics who they happen to admire.

No problem on the chuckles, I've gotten many over the last few days since I discovered MEFI and the liberal posts. Now to your assertion that I "tend to be rather naive and trusting and blind to the faults of those in politics who they happen to admire". If you knew my beliefs other than what you see on this post then you would know that is not true. I will be the first to jump on Dubya for something he does wrong. I don't believe there are *ANY* politicians that don't have a certain degree of corruption. Do you really think they got into their position by votes, come on, it takes a lot of money and differing degrees of corruption? So, no, I'm sure dubya will mess up, he is human like the rest of us, I still don't think he'll be anything close to the abomination we've just had the last 8 years.

the_0ne---to address the comic high point of your little rant there---you aren't saying Columbine was the fault of the Clintons?

Sapphireblue: Of course not, Clinton is a low-life scum, but he wouldn't kill or have somebody kill school children. (Still wondering about Vince Foster's demise though. ) And I'm sure you understood what I was getting at, just felt like posting without thinking first. I think the morals of this country have slowly to maybe even moderately declined during the Clinton years. I can't blame that fully on the Clinton's of course, but this is the man we are supposed to be looking up to as our President and I'm not sure I can name one thing he's done for me to look up to. How can we tell people to have a sense of law and morality when our highest officer is breaking any rule he can. From the lieing about Monica, which was the lowest in scale of the crimes, to the white house's e-mail system suddenly losing thousands of e-mails when they were to be subpeona'd to prominant republican files showing up in the white house basement with the clinton's fingerprints. And I didn't even have to pull any of this off of those conspiracy sites like some people are finding for Bush. This all happen right out in the open. Do you believe that these things didn't really happen? Pretty bad when somebody like Larry Flynt is actually fighting for your party. Eeks, I'd rather have Carville on my side. :)
posted by the_0ne at 12:34 PM on March 12, 2001


If in fact you *are*, then, can we blame Geedubyah for Santee? Or are you saying that now that there's a Republican in the White House all these nasty school shootings will stop? Maybe no one told the folks in Santee there was a new president yet? Just don't tell them he's from Texas. They *love* guns down there, yknow.

Part of the same post that was made without thinking. No, afraid that the morality is so low in our country that it'll take awhile to hopefully go back to normal. Maybe during Bush's first term, but doubt it, maybe his second. :)
posted by the_0ne at 12:36 PM on March 12, 2001


I am puzzled why so many folks who often seem so literate and bright fall so easily into My side is ok; your side is No good etc.
My morality, for example, did not differ under the GOP or the Dems...in fact, Ike, that paragon of morality had a babe on the side as did JFK. Who cares?
You simply can not blame a "moral decline" on Clinton's having a girlfriend when in fact it becomes apparent that Newt and many others also had girlfriends. Die GOP types become immoral because of Clinton? Or did Clinton become immoral becasue of them?
Lot of nonsense. Adultery has always been around. And power begets lots of babes, as Henry Kissinger so well noted .
We have blamed politicans, political parties, the 60s, feminism--you name it.
The advent of birth control made sex a much less risky business for players. Abortion made palying about a bit easier and freed one of responsibility of taking care of an unwanted child. Divorce rate up because the law now makes it easier for incompatible people to divorce....How many times Ronaald R married? Newt? LBJ? Clinton? Does it matter?

In sum: many reasons for changing things in our swociety and the simplification of blaming one man is simply very silly thinking. Ps: if one man can set tone for morality, the Jesus should be doing much better than he thus far has done.
posted by Postroad at 1:32 PM on March 12, 2001


...it'll take awhile to hopefully go back to normal.

Just out of curiosity, how would you define "normal," in regards to USA's morality? Preferably with some examples from a time when the morality you're after was normal.

See, what I remember from the 80s as "Typical American Presented Through Media" is stuff like Wall Street and your classic Yuppie couple. People now may be more relaxed in terms of things like sexuality, but I don't think that's immoral. I think immoral classifies stuff like prejudgement based on some prejudice, blatant disregard for the environment, and paying teachers low wages. Essentially all your typical left-wing based rant material.
posted by cCranium at 1:33 PM on March 12, 2001


way to troll, the_0ne. suggest that the low morals in this country not only led to the school shootings (and the decrease in the youth crime rate) but that said decrease in morals was due to clinton.

i'd like to see what a former coke addict/alcoholic and business failure is going to do for our morals. if you dig deep enough, you can find dirt on anyone. at least clinton's failures have been mostly personal ones rather than big iran-contra country-screwing ones.

as for the surplus, what the hell? you can't praise bush's tax cuts and then say that the surplus is fake. one or the other has to budge. and then to say that the deficit is the fake thing... in the beginning of the election, most conservatives i heard were pushing to pay down the debt too. only after feel-good speeches by 10-dubya-30 (I LOVE THAT) does america want his cut. when i don't get my social security because he paid it out to the richest 2% of the nation, i'm going to come back and ask you where that goddamn deficit really is.

and i'm getting really sick of people reproaching clinton's personal life. it's between him and his wife. maybe they had an open relationship and no one bothered to send you the memo? the only case in which there is a problem with what he did is if it hurt hillary, who is the only one in any position to care what he does with his penis. if you two are in some sort of committed relationship, by all means, tell us! if bill's been giving you the ol' runaround, maybe it would explain the i-will-ignore-facts-to-slander-people attitude you're taking about the whole family.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:40 PM on March 12, 2001


I never had a problem with it until he perjured himself. And got away with it.
But now, please, americans, we're starting to sound like those folks obsessed with the royals. Nobody could be interesting enough to get the attention the clintons do :)
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2001


Postroad: I really think I confused people. I didn't mean that by "the Clinton's" I am blaming the entire thing on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea. Actually Chelsea has been lucky enough to not be hounded by the media. I'm speaking of the whole administration, actually even better, the 8 years of his presidency. Of course I don't think that just Bill and Hillary have lowered *everybody's* morality. I think they have helped a lot, but no, it can not be blamed solely on them.

I'm speaking of the 90's, it's gotten really bad. I never feared anything when I was back in school. Especially being shot. We had 1500 people in my high school and 2 security guards. One was a 50 yr old woman and the other was a 30 year old woman. They both weighed around 120 lbs. I weighed more than that in 8th grade. They had no trouble. Now, that same high school, and this is only 10 years later, has police close off streets and armed guards on the school grounds when they are let out at around 3:00. This is just personal experience. But it doesn't seem to be any better from what I see in the news either. And I live in a pretty small city.

Also, back in my teenage years I had never thought that people would actually dismiss adultery. Yeah, you are right, you even missed one it's happened for years, JFK. It just seems to be a lot more tolerated in these times and it's really disturbing.

So, no, of course this all can't be brought on the Clinton's shoulders, but then again, they certainly didn't help things through those years either.

You speak of Reagan, Reagan wouldn't even sit in the Oval office without his suit coat on because he had too much respect for the office. Now you have Mr. Clinton being blown on that same chair. I'm sorry to all of you who don't find that an immorality booster.
posted by the_0ne at 1:48 PM on March 12, 2001


I never had a problem with it until he perjured himself. And got away with it.

Of course, had the Supreme Court not allowed a silly civil suit (Paula Jones) to be levelled against the President while he was in office, he never would have been in the position to perjure himself. Not that he wouldn't have anyway, but he would have been under much less pressure to lie once he was out of office.

I'm not defending his perjury, but sitting Presidents should not have to face civil suits until they are out of office. Criminal proceedings should be covered by Congress within established guidelines. The Office of the President is too important to be distracted by that kind of petty interference.

I never feared anything when I was back in school.... Now, that same high school.... has police close off streets and armed guards on the school grounds

And as evidenced by the fact that youth-and-school crime is declining all of this is merely an overreaction to a few highly-publicized events, not a reasonable response to a real threat. It's a big witch-hunt and a bunch of useless actions thrown out by school boards desperate not to appear soft on the potential threats. Sure there's alienation in schools that might lead to violence. Spend the money on listening to kids and making sure they're taken care of. Armed guards don't do that.

I'm sorry to all of you who don't find that an immorality booster.

I'm not exactly sure what the behavior of the President in the Oval Office has to do with the country's morality. Perhaps you could be clearer than just assuming we will agree with your examples?
posted by daveadams at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2001


I'm not exactly sure what the behavior of the President in the Oval Office has to do with the country's morality. Perhaps you could be clearer than just assuming we will agree with your examples?

Nobody here has to agree with my examples, so there was no assuming anything. That's what's great about this country, you can disagree with me and I can disagree with you with no repercussions.

Regarding the quote above. I'm not sure how you don't think that the president's actions in the oval office has a reflection on our country's morality. This is the oval office, the highest office in our great country, of course it matters what the president is doing in that office. I'd like him to be working on things that effect this country and maybe getting blown in the living room. haha But, seriously, we disagree majorly here, I think that the respect for that particular office should be his primary concern. If you have respect for the oval office, you'd think that would turn to also be respect for the presidency, but here we must disagree.

To set the record straight, the point I was making about how bad the high school had gotten was early in the 90's, well before the Columbine thing happened. I would think it's a lot worse now, because of the Columbine thing, but I couldn't comment on how it is, I'd say in the last 5 years.

Regarding the sitting president and civil suits. I sort of agree on this one. One thing I'm not sure on with the Paula Jones thing is "didn't it start before he was president?" Not sure on that, but civil suits would be better to be held off. Problem there is, with the power the president has, no matter who the president is, if they get wind of the suit, could give them way too much time to think something up.
posted by the_0ne at 4:20 PM on March 12, 2001


Kurt, do you have any evidence to back up your claims of liberals asking police to not patrol minority neighborhoods? Any? An article? A quote? Anything? Stats from the NYPD? Anything? Til then it’s more angry rhetoric from a conservative poster on Metafilter. I’ve come to expect more from most posts on this little weblog. You’re setting a poor precedent.

The answer to your second question is in the three sentences following where I use “understand”. So, read again.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 5:13 PM on March 12, 2001


Gee, if you want to focus on personal morality alone . . . I went to college in the 1980s. Seem to remember a lot of extremely heavy drinking going on, probably more casual sex (the height of the dumb teen-loses-it movie, this was) of the exceedingly blech (as in, mean, non-sensual, gross, etc.) variety. Also movies grew consistently more violent, soporific and filled with excess profanity. It was also quite the snobbish age.

Reagan started out being Mr. Jeffersonian "let's bring the small scale back to American life," at least in his speeches, in a most appealing manner. But he pushed an economic plan that made big biz even bigger and more controlling. He in turn gave America played his part in giving America more creepy, soul-deadening blockbusters, contributed to the growth of the brain-dead "show us your tits" party culture, etc.

I don't think Clinton favored the little people enough either, but at least he tried more often. (Recent example: At least he never favored the banks and credit card companies in every respect in re to creating the largest overhaul of bankruptcy law in American history.)
posted by raysmj at 5:29 PM on March 12, 2001


Oh, also for the record: The crack cocaine epidemic began in the 1980s. And it was not pretty at its height.
posted by raysmj at 5:44 PM on March 12, 2001


why do we have such a large surplus?

You don't. Particularly in light of the size of your national debt. Cut out the corporate welfare and it'd easily be doubled in size. Pay off the deficit and just think about all the extra money you'll have for whatever you want to do, be it tax cuts, spending plans, whatever.

Face it, if you don't pay off your debt, your children will be forced to.

Maybe the truth is the deficit was never that bad and the dem's are, as usual, blowing everything out of proportion.

Oh my. You are completely delusional, aren't you?? It's not about what the dems say, as they are not the providers of the official truth. Its about what the international money markets say, and when they aren't willing to finance your penchant for deficit financing, you're in for a rude awakening. The only way you managed to avoid this conflict for so long was because you financed your deficits out of the Social Security surplus. Once that started to run out...

Thanks to Clinton, that won't happen anytime soon. Ever had the IMF write your country's budget?? It's not a pleasant experience. I doubt if you'd have enjoyed it one bit.

But then Republicans think its important to have high levels of government debt, so their friends on Wall Street can make money off of the government selling bonds, isn't that so???
posted by theparanoidandroid at 1:26 AM on March 13, 2001


« Older Palm Beach Butterfly Ballot Reportedly Cost Gore...  |  No men:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments