From: Streak <notifications>
Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 6:09 AM
Subject: Someone just viewed: GOOGLE ALERT BILL CLINTON -> https://dailymemphian.com/article/3888/Nelson-Want-to-win-Democrats-Then-reclaim-Bill-Clinton Politically, Clinton brought the Democratic Party back from the dead in presidential politics. Of the six elections that preceded his first victory in 1992, the Democrats won just one. Clinton’s fellow southern governor, Jimmy Carter of Georgia, prevailed in 1976 but, unlike Clinton, failed to be reelected to a second term. Four of the Democrats’ five defeats were by landslides. Altogether, in the six elections from 1968 to 1988, the Republicans won 2,501 electoral votes to the Democrats’ 678. That’s the equivalent of a 25-7 beatdown in a football game. What Clinton realized from his vantage point as governor of Arkansas was tha t his party had camped out so far in left field as to be unelectable. It’s a lesson that, instead of raking him over the coals for being insufficiently progressive, his current Democratic critics ought
Someone just viewed your email with the subject: GOOGLE ALERT BILL CLINTON -> https://dailymemphian.com/article/3888/Nelson-Want-to-win-Democrats-Then-reclaim-Bill-Clinton Politically, Clinton brought the Democratic Party back from the dead in presidential politics. Of the six elections that preceded his first victory in 1992, the Democrats won just one. Clinton’s fellow southern governor, Jimmy Carter of Georgia, prevailed in 1976 but, unlike Clinton, failed to be reelected to a second term. Four of the Democrats’ five defeats were by landslides. Altogether, in the six elections from 1968 to 1988, the Republicans won 2,501 electoral votes to the Democrats’ 678. That’s the equivalent of a 25-7 beatdown in a football game. What Clinton realized from his vantage point as governor of Arkansas was that his party had camped out so far in left field as to be unelectable. It’s a lesson that, instead of raking him over the coals for being insufficiently progressive, his current Democratic critics ought to keep in mind as they position themselves to challenge Trump in 2020. Trump can’t win this election, but the Democrats could sure as hell lose it. Clinton’s move toward the center was creative. He was a self-described New Democrat who embraced a strategy of “triangulation.” The baseline of the new political triangle he created was occupied at opposite ends by liberal congressional Democrats and conservative congressional Republicans, with Clinton hovering at a point above and between them. He went big when he could, as with welfare reform. He went small when he couldn’t, as with school uniforms and V-chips in televisions. And what a decade the 1990s was. During Clinton’s eight years as president, the unemployment rate fell by nearly half, down to 4 percent. The stock market tripled in value. The economy grew by an average of more than 4 percent per year, and the annual budget deficit—about $300 billion when Clinton took office—turned into surpluses averaging well over $100 billion during each of his last four years. Yes, I know: what about the affair with 21-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky? It’s true. Personally, Clinton left something to be desired. But as political scientist John Zaller has shown, the combination of global peace, domestic prosperity and political moderation kept Clinton’s second-term job approval rating in the 60 percent-plus range even as his personal approval rating went down. Voters were right on both counts. The record of the Clinton presidency is on full display in the museum portion of the Clinton Library. To be sure, as in all the other presidential libraries, the museum emphasizes the events and accomplishments for which the president would most like to be remembered while downplaying those that were embarrassing. Impeachment for Clinton’s lies during the Lewinsky scandal could not be ignored, but folding it into a gallery called “Fight for Power” that focuses on judicial appointments and the budget makes it seem like just another partisan political battle. (By the way, the answer to the most frequently asked question at the library— “Where’s Monica’s blue dress?”— is, “We don’t have it.”) Anthony Clark makes a fair point in his 2015 book, “The Last Campaign: How Presidents Rewrite History, Run for Posterity and Enshrine Their Legacies.” When presidential libraries “focus on making it seem that everything a president did was successful, … we lose great opportunities to learn from the very real mistakes presidents make.” As with the other libraries, too, the Clinton Library is open to criticism for what it represents as much as for what it is. In a nutshell, critics charge, these facilities are wildly expensive “American pyramids” for every modern president. “Their size and pretentiousness connote that these were ‘Great Men’ who were involved in ‘Great Deeds,’” argues historian Louis Leonard Tucker — even though some of them weren’t. It’s worth noting that presidential libraries were an innovation of the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidency. By 1938, his activist administration had already generated several million documents, more than the Library of Congress’ wildly uneven holdings of his 29 predecessors’ papers combined. The arrangement that Roosevelt proposed and Congress accepted was that he would donate all of his papers to a library constructed for the purpose, which he would raise the funds to build. In return, the recently created National Archives would staff the facility. A 1955 law, the Presidential Libraries Act, extended Roosevelt’s arrangement to every living ex-president and future president. All of them have taken the deal. You can visit the libraries of every president from Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush. Barack Obama’s is in the works in Chicago, but with a recently announced twist: no papers. His records are being digitized instead. And let’s not overlook an added benefit of presidential libraries that has recently emerged: the creation of accompanying schools of public affairs. Over the years it has become more common for presidents to affiliate their library with a nearby university. Johnson, George Bush, and now Clinton have all used these partnerships to help launch new schools — the LBJ School of Public Affairs as part of the University of Texas, the George Bush School of Government and Public Service as part of Texas A & M, and the University of Arkansas’ Clinton School of Public Service. Few question the social value of schools like these in training and encouraging students to pursue careers in public administration, public policy and public service. Left to their own devices, universities are often loath to launch such initiatives because, unlike schools of law, business and engineering, they tend to lose money. The ability of former presidents to translate their prestige into large donations has been the difference between having these schools and not having them.
People on thread: YONI NETANYAHU OLGA BLOG POST BY EMAIL
Device: Unknown Device
Location: quincy, wa