Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   President Clinton's job approval rating hits 20-year high   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

2127 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2012 at 2:47 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-31 12:45:47 PM  
And he's gonna bring down the roof at the DNC.

The contrast is stark: Clinton, President during one of our strongest economies, will be there to endorse Obama, and people still love him.
On the Republican side? No Palin. No Bush. No Cheney. Only large swaths of distance between the previous administration and the GOP's catastrophic attempt to regain the White House thereafter.
 
2012-07-31 12:57:07 PM  
Well, yeah. The crazier the GOP gets, the better Clinton looks in hindsight.

"Holy shiat. We trusted Newt Gingrich more than Clinton? What, were we all high or something?"
 
2012-07-31 01:04:23 PM  
In related new, Bush won't be attending the Republican convention. He'll be too busy fishing.
 
2012-07-31 01:20:59 PM  
This always happens: Harry Truman left office getting quite literally the lowest approval rating in history (22%, even worse than Nixon's 24% when he resigned), but a few years later he was Give 'Em Hell Harry, and everyone said they loved him.

shiat, the fact that Nixon could start showing up in public again after his administration shows you that we tend to like ex-Presidents more than our current Presidents.
 
2012-07-31 01:25:28 PM  
Typical libtard Cult of Personality hero-worship in lieu of solid policies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's the top of the hour and I need to get my prayer mat and make my hourly ablutions before the glory that is my Home Reagan Shrine to banish the socialisms and ensure I'll be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it like Washington and Jefferson wrote it on July 4, 1776.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-31 01:31:59 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Typical libtard Cult of Personality hero-worship in lieu of solid policies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's the top of the hour and I need to get my prayer mat and make my hourly ablutions before the glory that is my Home Reagan Shrine to banish the socialisms and ensure I'll be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it like Washington and Jefferson wrote it on July 4, 1776.


I thought Jesus wrote it.
 
2012-07-31 01:44:27 PM  
B-b-b-b-bb-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bb-b-b-b-b-b-bb-b-b-but BLOWJOB!!!
 
2012-07-31 01:57:19 PM  
God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?
 
2012-07-31 02:25:33 PM  

what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?


yes. those were dark years. then we elected a more visionary leader and things kicked ass and we all got car magnets that looked like ribbons. but now we have a dark president again :(
 
2012-07-31 02:51:51 PM  

DeltaPunch: And he's gonna bring down the roof at the DNC.

The contrast is stark: Clinton, President during one of our strongest economies, will be there to endorse Obama, and people still love him.
On the Republican side? No Palin. No Bush. No Cheney. Only large swaths of distance between the previous administration and the GOP's catastrophic attempt to regain the White House thereafter.


No public figures, sure. However, the core of the Bush Administration is still there.
 
2012-07-31 02:52:15 PM  

what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?


A chubby chick with DSL who at the least didn't object to giving a hummer? Except that she didn't swallow (or maybe just not that one time...?), how is that "questionable"?

// I mean, if you're not a straight dude who's into chicks that look like 12-year-old boys
// or 12-year-old boys with (fake) tits
 
2012-07-31 02:53:34 PM  

jake_lex: This always happens: Harry Truman left office getting quite literally the lowest approval rating in history (22%, even worse than Nixon's 24% when he resigned), but a few years later he was Give 'Em Hell Harry, and everyone said they loved him.

shiat, the fact that Nixon could start showing up in public again after his administration shows you that we tend to like ex-Presidents more than our current Presidents.


Yeah look at Reagan he raised taxes 11 times, Cut and Ran in Lebanon, negotiated with terrorists, tripled the deficit, gave amnesty to 3 million illegals, and illegally funneled weapons to Iran and he is the most beloved Saint Reagan amongst Republicans, it appears time heals all wounds.
 
2012-07-31 02:54:25 PM  
I remember hearing how he'd be remembered as worse than Carter, which is pretty much the standard comparison for hating on Democrats. I wonder who was worse than Carter before Carter. Truman?
 
2012-07-31 02:56:09 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I remember hearing how he'd be remembered as worse than Carter, which is pretty much the standard comparison for hating on Democrats. I wonder who was worse than Carter before Carter. Truman?


Johnson, probably. Oh sure, everyone likes the Great Society, but Johnson's pretty much solely responsible for the clusterfark that was the 1968 Democratic Convention and the subsequent election of Richard Nixon. And from there to Carter, now that I think about it...
 
2012-07-31 02:56:14 PM  

SphericalTime: In related new, Bush won't be attending the Republican convention. He'll be too busy fishing lighting a doobie, eating cheetos, and watching Scooby Doo reruns.


He likes cheetos. They are delicious.
 
2012-07-31 02:59:22 PM  
he did good but repealed glass-steagle. That one was a bad, a big big bad.
 
2012-07-31 02:59:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?

A chubby chick with DSL who at the least didn't object to giving a hummer? Except that she didn't swallow (or maybe just not that one time...?), how is that "questionable"?

// I mean, if you're not a straight dude who's into chicks that look like 12-year-old boys
// or 12-year-old boys with (fake) tits


It's questionable because the leader of the free world couldn't be bothered to find someone discrete.
 
2012-07-31 03:00:15 PM  
President Clinton's job approval rating hits 20-year high

tee hee

His speech will no doubt bring the convention to a head.
 
2012-07-31 03:04:17 PM  

DeltaPunch: On the Republican side? No Palin. No Bush. No Cheney. Only large swaths of distance between the previous administration and the GOP's catastrophic attempt to regain the White House thereafter.


Clearly the only thing to do is set up a Reagan hologram, since that was the last well-liked Republican administration.
 
2012-07-31 03:04:23 PM  

vpb: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Typical libtard Cult of Personality hero-worship in lieu of solid policies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's the top of the hour and I need to get my prayer mat and make my hourly ablutions before the glory that is my Home Reagan Shrine to banish the socialisms and ensure I'll be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it like Washington and Jefferson wrote it on July 4, 1776.

I thought Jesus wrote it.


Blaspheme, Jesus can't right. He just told them what to write.
 
2012-07-31 03:08:49 PM  

what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?


So... Reagan? Bush 1 and Clinton both got us involved in more stupid, pointless brush wars and "saved" the budget in basically the same way Bush 2 did, by leaving things off the books and pretending certain revenue streams were not only bigger than they were but pretended they were accessible by the general fund when they weren't supposed to be any such thing. That and we largely failed to respond to the growing threat of al Quaeda in any effective way, though whether this was the result of incompetence or just really bad luck is still a matter of some debate and kinda moot.

I mean, the economic boom was nice (albeit not really a result of Clinton policies so much as technical revolution) and I won't argue that they were pretty good years to be in the middle class, but you're on the rose-colored-glasses there pretty hard.

//Technically Reagan got us involved in stupid brush wars, too, the troops were just still bored because he tended to use the CIA instead.
 
2012-07-31 03:09:32 PM  

what_now: Dr Dreidel: what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?

A chubby chick with DSL who at the least didn't object to giving a hummer? Except that she didn't swallow (or maybe just not that one time...?), how is that "questionable"?

// I mean, if you're not a straight dude who's into chicks that look like 12-year-old boys
// or 12-year-old boys with (fake) tits

It's questionable because the leader of the free world couldn't be bothered to find someone discrete.


Touche, though that was more Linda Tripp's fault. I don't think Monica was eager to have her dirty laundry aired dry-cleaned in front of the country.
 
2012-07-31 03:12:28 PM  

Dr Dreidel: she didn't swallow


If I recall the reports correctly President Clinton did not provide anything to be swallowed (or spat). Except that one time with the blue dress.

/you're welcome
 
2012-07-31 03:12:31 PM  

soia: he did good but repealed glass-steagle. That one was a bad, a big big bad.


There was really nothing he could do about that. The repeal passed with enough votes by both the House and Senate that had he vetoed it then the veto would have just been overridden by Congress. Link

NAFTA and normalizing trade with China on the other hand... He's one of the big reasons our manufacturing base has eroded to the extent it has.
 
2012-07-31 03:13:20 PM  

SphericalTime: In related new, Bush won't be attending the Republican convention. He'll be too busy enjoying the affluent lifestyle of American aristocracy.


why do these people event bother running for office?
 
2012-07-31 03:13:33 PM  

Jim_Callahan: what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?

So... Reagan? Bush 1 and Clinton both got us involved in more stupid, pointless brush wars and "saved" the budget in basically the same way Bush 2 did, by leaving things off the books and pretending certain revenue streams were not only bigger than they were but pretended they were accessible by the general fund when they weren't supposed to be any such thing. That and we largely failed to respond to the growing threat of al Quaeda in any effective way, though whether this was the result of incompetence or just really bad luck is still a matter of some debate and kinda moot.

I mean, the economic boom was nice (albeit not really a result of Clinton policies so much as technical revolution) and I won't argue that they were pretty good years to be in the middle class, but you're on the rose-colored-glasses there pretty hard.

//Technically Reagan got us involved in stupid brush wars, too, the troops were just still bored because he tended to use the CIA instead.


Reagan balanced the budget? That's news to me.
 
2012-07-31 03:13:46 PM  

smimmy: NAFTA and normalizing trade with China on the other hand... He's one of the big reasons our manufacturing base has eroded to the extent it has.


I thought that was because of robots - we still make a lot of stuff (by value), we just don't employ many humans to do it.

/who ate my medication?
 
2012-07-31 03:15:33 PM  
I guess Obama promised Bill that he would help Hillary in 2016 if Bill helps him win a second term. (I had to use the Clintons' first names or the post would have been confusing.)
 
2012-07-31 03:15:49 PM  
Jim_Callahan:

So what your saying is both sides are essentially...bad.

That presidents from both sides have the same record?

Reagan/Bush 1 also have a 20/30 year high?

Thats a whole lot of nothing.
 
2012-07-31 03:17:18 PM  

Jim_Callahan: So... Reagan? Bush 1 and Clinton both got us involved in more stupid, pointless brush wars and "saved" the budget in basically the same way Bush 2 did, by leaving things off the books and pretending certain revenue streams were not only bigger than they were but pretended they were accessible by the general fund when they weren't supposed to be any such thing. That and we largely failed to respond to the growing threat of al Quaeda in any effective way, though whether this was the result of incompetence or just really bad luck is still a matter of some debate and kinda moot.


so true, so true. With that number fudging Clinton made it appear like he balanced the budget and W made it seem like he added around a trillion in debt year after year. boaf sides bad.
 
2012-07-31 03:21:30 PM  
Run again in '16 Bill. Do it. Troll the fark out of all those constitutional scholars in the Tea Party.
 
2012-07-31 03:22:13 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Dr Dreidel: she didn't swallow

If I recall the reports correctly President Clinton did not provide anything to be swallowed (or spat). Except that one time with the blue dress.

/you're welcome


Eeeeuuurgh. REALLY didn't need that (even as much as I like Clinton). Though I'd like to point out that I did own up to my lack of specific knowledge of the ultimate resting place(s) of the sperm in question for whatever incidents. *dry heave*

// DNRTFStarr Report, though I lol'ed when one of my teachers in HS (an ordained rabbi, but a huge asshole) bemoaned "the state of the country" that we're salivating so at the release of such a prurient report - evidenced, he said, by the fact that he could not access the website it was on due to high traffic
// and I'm pretty sure the irony escapes him to this day
 
2012-07-31 03:22:45 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Typical libtard Cult of Personality hero-worship in lieu of solid policies.


3.bp.blogspot.com

But enough about the GOP...
 
2012-07-31 03:23:00 PM  

Jim_Callahan: what_now: God, remember when the budget was balance, unemployment was low, our troops were bored, and the biggest problem we had was our President had questionable taste in lovers?

So... Reagan? Bush 1 and Clinton both got us involved in more stupid, pointless brush wars and "saved" the budget in basically the same way Bush 2 did, by leaving things off the books and pretending certain revenue streams were not only bigger than they were but pretended they were accessible by the general fund when they weren't supposed to be any such thing. That and we largely failed to respond to the growing threat of al Quaeda in any effective way, though whether this was the result of incompetence or just really bad luck is still a matter of some debate and kinda moot.

I mean, the economic boom was nice (albeit not really a result of Clinton policies so much as technical revolution) and I won't argue that they were pretty good years to be in the middle class, but you're on the rose-colored-glasses there pretty hard.

//Technically Reagan got us involved in stupid brush wars, too, the troops were just still bored because he tended to use the CIA instead.


Like you said Reagan had his share of brush wars Talk about not containing the threat of Islamic terrorism! If Reagan wasn't giving terrorists weapons he was running from them. Add to that Reagan almost tripled the debt.

At least you can say Clinton went in the correct direction with the deficit, slowing the growth compared to Reagan. Bush II reversed that trend again in the typical conservative fashion. Clinton said Al-Queada/Bin Laden were the biggest threats and gave that information to Bush. Bush decided to do nothing, actually reversing what Clinton did with terrorism until 9/11.

Clinton has his faults (like repealing glass-seagal) but comparing the Budget/deficit and his work on the terrorist threat with Republican Presidents is no contest.
 
2012-07-31 03:24:03 PM  

NateGrey: So what your saying is both sides are essentially...bad.


Does appear to be the case.

Jim_Callahan: So... Reagan?


So vote Republican.
 
2012-07-31 03:25:16 PM  

Jim_Callahan: So... Reagan?


So the ratfarker who created the national debt and deficit out of whole cloth was "fiscally responsible".

The things you learn.
 
2012-07-31 03:27:11 PM  

wedun: SphericalTime: In related new, Bush won't be attending the Republican convention. He'll be too busy enjoying the affluent lifestyle of American aristocracy.

why do these people event bother running for office?


How are we supposed to know who to kowtow to if they don't take their turns ruling us (or at least trying to rule us)?
 
2012-07-31 03:27:36 PM  
He was despised and vilified by the GOP during his presidency. Sound familiar?
 
2012-07-31 03:29:50 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Reagan balanced the budget? That's news to me.


Fair point. Neither did Carter. I have no idea about Ford, so my next guess is Ford.

//I suspect we can probably rewind this to the Mayflower settlers without finding someone that actually matches the criteria.

NateGrey: Jim_Callahan:

So what your saying is both sides are essentially...bad.


No, it's that basically no president is as awesome as what_now seems to think Clinton was. Plus he was a pretty mediocre president at best, the fact that the economy was up at the time was... because the economy was up at the time. We had an entire new technology to turn into marketable products that the entire world wanted, taking advantage of that one wasn't exactly rocket science for the guys that convinced the entire world that fizzy caramel water was the best thing since sliced bread.

The government was "helping" the economy at the time by deregulating the securities market and more specifically the futures market via actions of both the legislative and executive branches, though, so yeah, on those grounds I guess Clinton really did contribute to our financial stabilioh, wait.

Headso: so true, so true. With that number fudging Clinton made it appear like he balanced the budget and W made it seem like he added around a trillion in debt year after year. boaf sides bad.


Yeah, it turns out that if you add trillions to the budget and it turns out your term ends on the peak of a boom cycle, you can get away with it, and if you add trillions and then a bubble pops, you can't. Who farking knew.

//Obama's the only president I'm aware of that's actually trying to do right by the country without regard for political gain or loss.
 
2012-07-31 03:31:00 PM  
I like Bill. I admit it. Say what you will about him (I, for one, think Ms. Lewinsky is rather attractive), but listen to him in a serious conversation and you cannot deny that he is one of the most gifted political minds of our time...hands down. And thats the kind of leader we want...don't we?
 
2012-07-31 03:32:04 PM  

Jim_Callahan: No, it's that basically no president is as awesome as what_now seems to think Clinton was. Plus he was a pretty mediocre president at best, the fact that the economy was up at the time was... because the economy was up at the time. We had an entire new technology to turn into marketable products that the entire world wanted, taking advantage of that one wasn't exactly rocket science for the guys that convinced the entire world that fizzy caramel water was the best thing since sliced bread.


This whole paragraph is subjective at best...an outright falsehood at worst.
 
2012-07-31 03:35:10 PM  

Madbassist1: I like Bill. I admit it. Say what you will about him (I, for one, think Ms. Lewinsky is rather attractive), but listen to him in a serious conversation and you cannot deny that he is one of the most gifted political minds of our time...hands down. And thats the kind of leader we want...don't we?


Unfortunately, no. For a huge number of voters, intelligence is a DISqualification for a candidate. (I assume the Tea Party is pandering to *somebody*).
 
2012-07-31 03:35:50 PM  

Citrate1007: He was despised and vilified by the GOP during his presidency. Sound familiar?


But wait, with Clinton the Republican base was obsessed with Clinton so they seemed to come up with a new baseless conspiracy theory every month, whether it was whitewater, cocain dealing, murdering vince foster, the base believed every alligation and demanded more documentation to be released. At the same time the Republicans in congress blocked everything Clinton tried to do, whether is was security against terrorism or balancing the budget. Instead of legeslating they waisted taxpayers money on fruitless investigations....

wait a minute...
 
2012-07-31 03:36:17 PM  

Madbassist1: Jim_Callahan: No, it's that basically no president is as awesome as what_now seems to think Clinton was. Plus he was a pretty mediocre president at best, the fact that the economy was up at the time was... because the economy was up at the time. We had an entire new technology to turn into marketable products that the entire world wanted, taking advantage of that one wasn't exactly rocket science for the guys that convinced the entire world that fizzy caramel water was the best thing since sliced bread.

This whole paragraph is subjective at best...an outright falsehood at worst.


I'll give you subjective, but false how, exactly? The tech bubble fueling the world (and US) economy in the '90s isn't exactly an obscure opinion held by a few fringe folk. I mean, we went from "hey, this nerd thing is kinda cool, I bet more people will be interested" to a computer in basically every household and your grandmother forwarding you weird urban legend spam and computers being put into everything from microwaves to phones. Plus shiat like Pets.com seeming like a good investment at the time somehow.
 
2012-07-31 03:36:43 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Yeah, it turns out that if you add trillions to the budget and it turns out your term ends on the peak of a boom cycle, you can get away with it, and if you add trillions and then a bubble pops, you can't. Who farking knew.


We were in a housing boom where every knucklehead with a HELOC was stimulating the economy and like 5% unemployment on the back of all that spending. But yet we were already waaaaay into the debt weeds before that bubble burst. The economy going to shiat didn't cause all that debt.
 
2012-07-31 03:38:15 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-31 03:39:03 PM  

incendi: DeltaPunch: On the Republican side? No Palin. No Bush. No Cheney. Only large swaths of distance between the previous administration and the GOP's catastrophic attempt to regain the White House thereafter.

Clearly the only thing to do is set up a Reagan hologram, since that was the last well-liked Republican administration.


Maybe they could get him to rap like the Tupac hologram:

img717.imageshack.us

We had a firm policy, no terrorist capitulation
But all those liberal suckas kept spoutin' speculation,
They said we traded hostages for guns and arms, of course
But our no-concession policy remained in full force,
errbody sing it with me now:
We didn't trade sh*t... nor will we!
Where's my sainthood? Instill me!
No ransom payments, you can grill me!
Where's my sainthood? Instill me!

/wikiwikiwiki-wooo
 
2012-07-31 03:40:40 PM  
i.imgur.com


Ah, 1992. So long ago.
 
2012-07-31 03:41:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-31 03:42:12 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Madbassist1: Jim_Callahan: No, it's that basically no president is as awesome as what_now seems to think Clinton was. Plus he was a pretty mediocre president at best, the fact that the economy was up at the time was... because the economy was up at the time. We had an entire new technology to turn into marketable products that the entire world wanted, taking advantage of that one wasn't exactly rocket science for the guys that convinced the entire world that fizzy caramel water was the best thing since sliced bread.

This whole paragraph is subjective at best...an outright falsehood at worst.

I'll give you subjective, but false how, exactly? The tech bubble fueling the world (and US) economy in the '90s isn't exactly an obscure opinion held by a few fringe folk. I mean, we went from "hey, this nerd thing is kinda cool, I bet more people will be interested" to a computer in basically every household and your grandmother forwarding you weird urban legend spam and computers being put into everything from microwaves to phones. Plus shiat like Pets.com seeming like a good investment at the time somehow.


The 'bubble pop' resulted in one of the shortest and weakest recessions in our nation's history (3 months, starting Q2 2001). It wasn't so dramatic that we had to fully reverse all the spending trends that were lowering the deficit.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report