Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

1992 History: Clinton's Nasty Opponents

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 11:08 AM
Original message
1992 History: Clinton's Nasty Opponents
Thought you all might be interested in a little bit of history from the 1992 campaign, the last one with a large number of Democratic candidates.

Attacks by Democrats on other Democrats running for president are hardly new, and they were perhaps even more vicious in 1992, with "cute and cuddly" candidates like Paul Tsongas getting in on the act. (Tsongas called Bill Clinton a name!) Clinton, of course, threw some elbows, too. From Time Magazine on January 27, 1992, select excerpts:

From now on, most of Clinton's opponents can be expected to take dead aim at him, rather than scatter their fire against one another. And as he comes under close scrutiny for the first time outside Arkansas, Clinton may well be vulnerable on a variety of issues. One of them is his penchant for offering what sounds like detailed programs that on examination sometimes turn out to be distressingly vague. Nebraska Senator Robert Kerrey has already assailed the imprecision of Clinton's stand on health care, which is emerging as one of the hottest issues of the campaign. (....)

Then there are the rumors about womanizing that have dogged Clinton for years and resurfaced in sensationalist tabloids last week. Clinton called the stories "lies" but, asked point-blank by a New Hampshire television interviewer last week, "Have you ever committed adultery?" he replied, "If I had, I wouldn't tell you." He admits that his 16-year marriage has gone through some troubled times but says it is now solid. Friends, and even some foes, note that no one has ever been able to pin down anything. (....)

Such performances lead opponents to call Clinton "Slick Willie." (....)

Furthermore, the Governor has implemented a welfare-reform plan, requiring able-bodied recipients to undergo training or schooling, and imposing penalties if they do not. So far, the results are inconclusive, but critics say the plan has been sabotaged by the state's sluggish welfare bureaucracy.

If true, that would point up what many critics, and some friends, consider Clinton's greatest executive weakness: he is a poor manager who conceives good programs but does not see that they are carried out. A lawsuit filed against the state and Clinton personally last July charges that the Arkansas child-welfare system is riddled with abuse and neglect; children placed in foster care have been mistreated, and some have even died. The problems have been festering for at least a decade, but Clinton paid scant attention. (....)

Liberals contend that Clinton inherited a regressive tax structure (it presses harder on the poor than on the well-off) and made it more regressive by raising sales taxes while largely leaving alone income and business levies. Clinton replies, correctly, that the state constitution requires a nearly unobtainable 75% vote of the legislature to raise any tax other than the sales levy and, more dubiously, that he sought to change that and failed (critics say he did not make anywhere near the effort required). (....)

Clinton says he could provide health insurance to all Americans solely through strict cost controls.

Experts think this would require a harsh rationing of medical services. Says Robert Berne, professor of public administration at New York University: "If someone could do what he says, they would have done it a long time ago."

And don't forget Tsongas's "Pander Bear" smear against Clinton. That name calling stuck, second only to "Slick Willie." Anyone got some more quotes from 1992?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Girlfriday Donating Member (570 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good post!
It was always thus! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yep. Political infighting is nothing new...
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 11:23 AM by deutsey
the big thing that's different in this election is the Bush/Rove junta. I get very nervous when I see Dems attacking each other so much when so much is at stake this time around. I really feel that our way of government is hanging in the balance with this election. I shudder to think what Bush and Rove will do if they win or steal it again.

Maybe I'm overstating it and I do believe strong, even nasty debate can be a sign of strength (we ain't dead yet, in other words); but I think we need to emphasize that we are going to have to support one of these candidates eventually, that means all of us who want to oust Bush, anyway. Why create such acrimony between camps now that could weaken the alliances we'll need to win in '04?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. There's a Difference, Though...
There's a difference between saying something like "Clinton's healthcare plan won't cover enough children, and it doesn't provide sufficient vaccination coverage. My plan is better because..." and "Clinton stands with Richard Nixon, because he likes the Commie Chinese too much."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhereIsMyFreedom Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. It may be common
but I still don't like it. Policy attacks are fine, but should still be respectful. Personal attacks should have no place in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsipple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, They Shouldn't, But...
Bush and Rove certainly have no problem with personal attacks. Our boys (and girl) must be tough and ready for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC