Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of the former president and icon of lesbians and feminists the world over, attacked the Bush White House recently with a barrage of unfounded, stupid, asinine and buffoonish comments derisive of the Presidentís first eight months in office. Speaking from Menands, New York, the freshman senator fielded queries on a number of fronts ranging from algoreís prospects for a run in 2004 to her aspirations for the White House. But it was her derision of President Bushís undoing "of so much of the success of the last eight years in the last eight months" that grabbed the most attention and prodded me to revisit the "numerous" feats that the Clintonistas achieved over the course of boy Clintonís two terms. And truthfully, I had a difficult time finding any triumphs.
Can we call Bill and Hillaryís foisting of practicing homosexuals upon the United States Armed Forces a success? Probably not. Recall that the move to legitimize sodomites in the American military helped to bring Billyís poll numbers down below fifty percent in the first several months of 1993. What resulted was an ill conceived "donít ask donít tell" ambiguity that only angered both militant homosexuals and patriotic conservatives. To date, this dubious plot still raises the ire of folks inside the Pentagon.
Was it the welfare reform signed in 1996? Hardly. The Newtonian Revolution has digs on that, especially when we remember the man from Hope signed the legislation only after Dick Morris persuaded Clinton that the electorate wanted welfare reform. And Billy signed on (kicking and screaming) only after the bill came to his desk for a third time. Moreover, the notion of a welfare overhaul didnít see the light of day until the Gingrich Revolution spawned it after the 1994 elections. Democratic congresses had 30 years to revamp the system, but they didnít. And three Democratic presidents avoided the issue as well, despite having a friendly legislature in their corner.
The sentiment on NAFTA is mixed. And even granting that greater free trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico is a good thing, President George H.W. Bush forged the groundwork for the trade agreement. Billy, to his credit, didnít screw things up.
The fourth straight year of a budget surplus is certainly a Republican oddity. For the previous 40+ years of Democratic control of the purse, the fed ran deficits every year. To break it down for liberals, that means that congress spent money they didnít have to begin with. The notion of deregulation, disciplined spending and incentives for investment and economic creativity never crossed the minds of tax and spenders for forty yearsÖthat is until Ronald Reagan crushed inflation and Jimmy Carter, and the GOP won control of the Senate for a season in the early to mid-eighties. President Reagan powered three tax cuts through a reluctant congress, a move that did a great deal to bring on the vibrancy of the 1990ís by giving consumers and businesses their money back, prompting a revived entrepreneurial spirit and a desire to spend for disposable income on high tech toys.
Yet, Bill and Hillary always claim that the 1993 budget created the extraordinary upswing. They spew such leftist hyperbole despite the fact that this onerous madness was the largest tax increase in history! And the record will show that the NASDAQ and the stock market didn't really take off till Republicans assumed control of the Congress.
Newt, Dick, Tom and J.C.ís grabbing the reins in the House of Representatives in January of 1995 and the greatness of American business and technological ingenuity had everything to do with the roaring 1990ís, while the liberals at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue spun their wheels in leftist drivel.
So if Bill and Hill canít take credit for the positives and can be wholly blamed for the outlandish behavior and deceit and fraud (Campaign Finance with the Communist Chinese, Filegate, and Monica Lewinsky) that marked the 1990ís, then what on earth was Hillary talking about when she told reporters and citizens that "The administration has undone so much of the success of the last eight years in less than eight months"? The only explanation Iíve been able to determine is that Hillary and Bill achieved so little (if anything) that it really isnít that difficult to imagine that President Bush could surpass these buffoons in a matter of eight months. And even this is questionable on some fronts, which makes it even more puzzling as to Hillaryís unhappiness.
The education package for the 2002 budget is rife with spending increases on programs that donít work. Even Ted Kennedy champions the legislation, and anything championed by Chappaquidick spells disaster. Military spending is not adequate to meet the needs of our overstretched and ill-equipped armed forces, and the Presidentís energy policy still hasnít passed the Democratically controlled Senate. The coming months will render a verdict on the Presidentís first budget, to be sure.
President Bushís tax cut, as meager as it was, did more for the American people than anything the Arkansas goons ever did, because for the first time since the Gipper pushed through marginal rate reductions in 1981, our President was telling the American people that we and we alone are responsible for what we do with our money, not some federal agency. That alone supersedes any liberal idea, an oxymoron if there ever was one, borne of the pseudo-intellect known as Hillary.
Back to column