Oops, 7 Days. Hey look I don't update on weekends.

Bill could do it

Y'know, Bill Clinton could probably help turn national opinion on the gay issue; could probably also defuse the growing power of the religious right.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 1st, 2006
Probably.
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
Bill blew it.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 1st, 2006
How so?
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
No, Monica blew it.
Permalink Bill 
January 1st, 2006
Nice profile of Bill in Esquire a couple months back. He was on the cover. He seemed more focused on global health issues than national politics.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/
Permalink  
January 1st, 2006
Certainly - I believe it is very poor form for an ex-President to get himself actively involved in politics...
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
Why? Why should the person best able to effect change not do it?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 1st, 2006
Because they had their shot and missed it. Anything else is sour grapes.

Plus, the reigning president needs to have a God complex to function. Constant second-guessing by previous occupants of the position would undermine his ability to make hard decisions.
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
So Flasher, I hear you're into fascism now a days. How's that working out for you?
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 1st, 2006
Examples?
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
The rule which prevents a President from being so more than two terms causes the the problem, not the individual.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 1st, 2006
A former President, if he treads carefully, can affect more change than when he's in power, because he's not answerable to anyone, and the public knows that. So he can truly act in an advisory capability, offering advice with no power to corrupt him.

Yes, a strong former President could undermine a weaker current President, but IMHO that just strengthens the system, since the strong President doesn't have any power to abuse.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 1st, 2006
Well yes, but that depends on finding the kind of person which you might as well settle on as dictator. ;)
Permalink Flasher T 
January 1st, 2006
No, Bill proved with "Don't ask, don't tell" that he was powerless to 'fix' the gay issue.

Mr. Clinton has a remarkable talent for both great vision (universal health care) and great ability to shoot himself in the foot (gays in the military, Monica).

And the "gay issue" doesn't really NEED fixing. The opposition to Gay Marriage is a Republican pseudo-issue to enrage their support, and swing moderate voters. The very real issue of rights for gay partners does need to be addressed -- but won't be addressed as long as "Gay Marriage!" can be waved as a flag by the Republicans.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 1st, 2006
On the other hand, I think Philo does have a point, that Bill can be a great "voice in the wilderness" bringing focus to the need for Democrats to support the middle of the road.

Support for continued Social Security, balancing the budget, and continued financial support for education. These are the big three issues that will affect America's future.

I would add focus on the military budget -- but as long as we're "fight'n terrorism", raising taxes to pay for the increased military spending is the best that can be done.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 1st, 2006
Education needs to be funded at the state level. Leadership from the federal, but run by the states. If *I* were President, my involvement in education would be a call to parents to stop evading the blame - if Johnny can't read, it's because his parents didn't care. If a teacher says Johnny needs more help, then you help him or get him a tutor - don't blast the school for failing.

As for military spending - my focus would be on why the military takes so much money, pays its people so little, and is completely unprepared for its mission.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 1st, 2006
>As for military spending - my focus would be on why the
>military takes so much money, pays its people so little,
>and is completely unprepared for its mission.

Cause Congress holds the purse strings and the executive branch is responsible for what it does. In a way, you could say that it's the founding fathers' fault.

It's slightly more than that actually - the executive branch's ONLY real way of exerting a lot of power is through the military. If you're part of the presidency and you're itching to do something that will get you in the history books (as W has admitted to), then it'll probably involve the military somehow.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 1st, 2006
Coordinators like politicians and other professionals tend to have far less power outside their institutional roles than in. This was described in _Disciplined Minds_ (audio reading online).
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 2nd, 2006
But OTOH, such politicians can be pressured by popular pressure to become "leaders" of popular movements they often previously opposed, or barely lift a finger to help. This is worthwhile.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
January 2nd, 2006
(audio reading online).

link?
Permalink  
January 2nd, 2006
I got tired of the "the reading will be in the second half of the program" but I may still download & edit them into a more compact form.

That website had lots of intersting stuff on it, it's worth a browse.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 2nd, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics