On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Gripp, William [NCSUS] wrote:
I worked at a major US bank when he was elected the first time. Of all the
people I knew at work and outside, one TWO admitted to having voted for him.
Everyone else said they had voted for Bush or Perot. We never could figure
out how he was elected. Despite the polls showing his high "approval"
rating at times, I couldn't find people who agreed. I have no idea where
the press really gets those numbers. Believe me when I say that a
substantial proportion of the American public never has and never will like
"Slick Willy".
I believe you. One thing to keep in mind is that there are regional
differences in politics. In some areas and in some states, Clinton
has always been extremely unpopular. Indiana would be a good example.
In the 1992 election, Clinton got less than 500f the popular vote.
This is because of Perot running. Perot and Bush each got less than
Clinton, but their combined votes were more than 50%. Clinton may
not have won the election in 1992 had Perot not run.
As a president elected by a minority-plurality in 1992, Clinton was
very unpopular for a newly elected president, and the Republicans in
the senate decided that they didn't have to cooperate with this elected
president. You might recall the republicans set an all-time record
for number of filibusters in the first 2 years of Clinton's presidency.
But three things happened to increase Clinton's popularity to the point that
a large majority of americans approved of his presidency. first, the
economy really took off under his policies, second newt gingrich
became speaker of the house under a republican majority, and third,
the Republicans chose to go after Clinton trying to find scandals
with a ferocity never seen before.
when Newt came up with teh idea of shutting down the govt, and the
republicans in the House embarked on a path of complete uncooperation
with Clinton, it was seen largely as a disrespect of the democratic
traditions in our country by many citizens. Newt became extremely
unpopular, and Clinton's popularity surged as a reaction to dislike for
Newt. the Ken Starr hearings just increased Clinton's popularity.
Remember, Starr found absolutely nothing on Clinton except for Clinton
lying during Starr's investigation itself, which means he found nothing
in the matters he was appointed for, nothing that Clinton did before
Starr's appointment.
I don't really like Clinton, but he deserves considerable credit for
one thing. During the Reagan years, the govt policy was to give
huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 50f the of the populace, while
supporting unprecendented peace time military budgets, financed by
excessive borrowing. Both the annual budget deficit and the national debt
spun out of control. Clinton fought the republicans in congress to
take back some of those tax breaks that were nothing more than welfare
for the wealthy, and got the military budgets closer to being in line
with what we need as a line of defense (they are still too large in my
opinion). Clinton deserves considerable credit for making this happen,
and aided by low interest rates the annual budget deficit went away
with a balanced budget, and even a surplus, the first since the nixon
administration. Unemployment during the Reagan years exceeded 7 0.000000e+00ach
year, the highest of any decade since the great depression. There is
no question that Clinton in the white house has been good for the economy,
and that's something american's care alot about, hence clinton's popularity.
Cheers,
Joseph
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|