Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
I've never read Krauthammer before, and if this is an example of his "work," then I appreciate this opportunity to avoid wasting my time in the future reading his writing. He is an idiot. Apparently, he's an idiot who often says stuff certain folks like to read. And pretend. But an idiot nonetheless.
Clinton did not roll the dice on a longshot, bucking popular and conventional and time-honored wisdom from all corners of the globe like Dubya did. So......if a "president" has to do that in order to have a "legacy" then Clinton does not have a legacy and Dubya will have one. But if running the government efficiently, balancing the budget, etc., is the measure, then Clinton was one of the best Presidents in recent memory and Dubya was the worst. From an administrative perspective, Clinton was one of the most effective Presidents.......ever.
Unless of course.......unless you like to read stuff that makes you hate. Stuff that makes you angry. If you like drama, then Dubya is your MAN. A complete and total failure, but your Hero nonetheless.
|
Clinton balanced the budget and made the government run effectively?!?! I don't think they're going to be carving his grill on Mt Rushmore for that kind of epic leadership. I also don't think those great pieces of legislation rise to the level of "best president in recent memory."
Clinton was a small man, with small accoplishments. And reforming welfare, and federal guidelines for baby car seats and school uniforms are all small accomplishments for a pathetic man - which was the whole point of that idiot Krauthammer's article.
Maybe you can get a copy of the New York Times and flip to the section that has Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich and Paul Krugman. Those guys aren't idiots like Dr. Krauthammer (he's an MD). They love Bill Clinton and hate W. And their writing is identical to your post.