Subscribe to EspressoPundit

About Greg

« The Good Old Days | Main | Investigate This »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

One of the maddening aspects of Bill Clinton's character was his ability to deftly triangulate his opponents. I put him among the most skilled politicians of the 20th Century, he was a master. It did not make him a great leader but his tactical skill enabled him to be a survivor. He was cynical and skilled, which were two attributes that served him well throughout his career.

Zero, on the other hand, is an ideologue and lacks the political dexterity that Clinton exhibited. You can hear it in his speeches and proposals, its the same Progressive line that has been parroted for >90 years. He's committed to his positions regardless of the reality on the ground. This inflexibility has made him increasing ineffective as his own party tunes him out. Increasingly the voters are doing the same, which will make for a challenging reelection.

I expect more of the same from Hussein the Wise because what he is saying and proposing now is all he knows. The expected result is more of the same except worse as economic conditions worsen both here and abroad.

The suck will continue...

Triangulating did not save Clinton. He was saved by the fact that in 1996, as in every election, the people who make the decision (as opposed to the pundits and activists) started paying attention in August. At that time, unemployment was incredibly low, inflation was incredibly low, we were at peace and the Monica scandal was a year and a half away. While this had little to do with Clinton, the President gets the credit and the President gets the blame, whether or not he deserves it. It is amazing that even under these conditions, Clinton got just under 50% of the popular vote.

The argument that triangulation saved Clinton is a myth peddled by Dick Morris to sell books. Obama could show up to the State of the Union Address in a Che Guevara t-shirt and if unemployment was 5%, inflation was 2%, we were at peace and there were no major scandals, he would still beat Romney or Perry handily. As it stands, he will be crushed if Romney is the nominee and Perry could also probably beat him.

Obama did tack to the right, only to find that horizon move farther way. Now he has to tack back to the left to recapture his base, which he has alienated by consistently delaying or ignoring all of his primary promises to his core constituency.

Of course, Clinton had the good fortune to run against Bob Dole. And maybe that explains why the Left is savaging everyone that has a chance.

Meanwhile, your boyfriend is proposing bills to save the country an insignificant sum while single-handedly killing the stripping industry, not to mention creating inefficiencies across the board. Change is incredibly annoying.

Has he ever heard of unintended consequences? I thought he was from the party of do-nothing. Perhaps he should worry about the penny, not the dollar.

Clinton caught a lucky break more than anything. He was not politically skilled, just at the right place at the right time.

The early Clinton years were horrible, but once the economy started roaring and Bill and Hillary had been neutered by Gingrich, people were happy with divided government. Clinton basically became a pro-choice Republican.

It also didn't help that the 1996 GOP nominee belonged in a nursing home and a crazy billionaire decided to run a center-right independent candidacy twice.

You have to pay attention to what Obama does, not what he says. He proposed more taxes for the rich, but not a higher tax rate. He is tacking already. Doesn't help though if it isn't permanent.

The comments to this entry are closed.