-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 102 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Bill Clinton and the Reagan Consensus
Obama’s failure, Scott Walker’s success: Clinton’s support of Reaganomics.
(Page 3 of 4)
Here’s the twist.
Unlike Bill Clinton’s 1993-1994 failed attempt to do some version of the same thing — Obama succeeded. For two solid years in 2009 and 2010, President Obama and the Pelosi/Reid-led House and Senate not only followed Obama’s decidedly Leftist transformational agenda, they did it with gusto. Then, as with Clinton, Team Obama got clobbered in the off-year elections — this time not for trying but thankfully failing, as did Clinton, but for succeeding.
The really key difference between Obama and Clinton at that pivot point was that in spite of the massive 2010 defeat by the GOP, unlike Clinton — who changed course after the massive 1994 defeat — Obama kept on keeping on. Barack Obama was indeed committed to transforming America in his increasingly politically mad quest to socialize America.
To wax cultural, Obama seemed increasingly to resemble no one as much as the mad Dr. Henry Frankenstein in his fanatic quest to bring life to a monster — except in Obama’s case the monster is Socialism. For someone who has been tagged by one of his devoted supporters (Oprah) as “The One,” the Dr. Frankenstein analogy is considerably apt, as the good doctor in the famous film version of Mary Shelly’s tale went insane playing God in the attempt to bring his monster to life.
For a little post-Wisconsin humor, take a look at Dr. Obama – er, Frankenstein — in this clip from the 1931 classic, where the English actor Colin Clive gave his immortal performance as the mad Dr. Frankenstein. The dialogue is, to Obama critics, not all that far from the Obama/Left-wing obsession with reviving the failed economics of Socialism/Liberalism/Big Government.
Exclaims the doctor to a skeptical on-looking Dr. Victor Moritz as the covered monster lies on a nearby table, shockingly jolted into life:
Henry Frankenstein: Look! It’s moving. It’s alive. It’s alive… It’s alive, it’s moving, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, IT’S ALIVE!
Dr. Victor Moritz: Henry — In the name of God!
Henry Frankenstein: Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!
Eventually, of course, the terrified townspeople come looking for the monster, torches in hand.
On Tuesday, realizing the monster of Socialism/Liberalism that had been set loose in their state, the voters of Wisconsin overwhelmingly came to the aid of the governor who was determined to stop the political monster in its tracks.
They supported Scott Walker because what he was promising was a return to the Reagan Consensus. To make certain that Wisconsin was returned to a world of low taxes and balanced budgets. The only world in which jobs can be created — as 21 million of them were created nationally in the Reagan era with another 21 million or so in the Clinton era. The Clinton era — in which Bill Clinton accepted the fundamental tenets of the Reagan Consensus, essentially keeping Reagan’s policies in place and expanding them.
Or, as Art Laffer has said, conducting the Clinton presidency as “more Reagan than Reagan.”
Bill Clinton is now out and about boasting about his economic record as president. A record that is infinitely better than Obama’s — and Obama knows it.
Which is why Bill Clinton is driving Barack Obama nuts.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/07/bill-clinton-and-the-reagan-co
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
CJW| 6.7.12 @ 8:37AM
We are getting carried away by Bubba's jabs at Obama. Bubba is still upset that Obama beat Hillary. He wants Obama to lose, then Mitt is stuck with the deficit mess, and Hillary can run in 2016 and blame the Republicans for not fixing the Obama mess.
If Obama wins, then the Republicans will win in 2016 as is the pattern, Biden will never win.
Clinton did not believe in small government or the Reagan tax cuts, he listened to Morris after the 1994 election so he could win in 1996. He was also lucky to run against Bob Dole who refused to attack Clinton.
Ike presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, got us out of Korea, and did not involve us in wars in Vietnam (Indochina) as he was urged to do.
TLP| 6.7.12 @ 4:03PM
He's a RAPIST, a serial MISOGENYST, and a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
Why are we even talking about this POS?
In another time?
We would be SHUNNING this Son of a Wh*re, and a Town Drunk.
Kwan| 6.7.12 @ 8:40AM
Et tu Slick Willy? Clinton appears to be trying to move Obama back from the depths of insanity to a lesser lunacy perhaps in an effort to save the Democratic Party from oblivion. But Obama continues his plunge into madness with one dumb failed communist solution to the nation's problems after another. In a few months the nation will rescue itself from the clown-circus Obama Administration and bring a halt to the fundamental transformation of our country into Venezuela.
fmm| 6.7.12 @ 8:42AM
The only reason Clinton had positive economic results is that his feet were held to the fire by a Reagan Consensus Republican Congress. All of the economic success of his presidency was due to congressional programs. Clinton was more interested in serving his own personna than in fostering socialism on the country. He realized he could personally win by going along with the congress after the first two failed years. His current actions are based on his seeing an opportunity to ressurect his fame. Obama, in contrast, is so focused on himself as the center of all things, that he is unable to adjust.
TLP| 6.7.12 @ 4:06PM
He was offered Bin Laden, on a Silver Platter, by Sudan, and he didn't take him.
He OWNS 911.
Don't ever forget that.
JimH| 6.7.12 @ 8:45AM
During the fifties many otherwise conservative Americans decided to make a deal with the devil and support an expanded state, thinking it necessary to fight the Red menace. Clinton’s success in budget balancing was owed more to luck and a Republican congress than his own policies. Remember Hillarycare.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.7.12 @ 8:59AM
I’m not sure that the economic success that America enjoyed during the late 90’s was as directly attributable to Clinton’s wise economic policies and decisions as it was to his lack of interference. This inability to intervene with negative results was largely aided by the fact that during the second term, the Clinton administration was so mired in scandal that their primary agenda was to save Bubba, and could not ever begin their promise to “reform” welfare reform, or let Al Gore and Hillary go wild, as they intimated prior to reelection.
Drunken Sailor| 6.7.12 @ 10:37AM
Let's not forget Clinton was lucky enough to be in office during the Dot Com explosive growth and all the money/taxes that brought.
Von Mises Jr| 6.7.12 @ 9:18AM
I am sorry if I cannot share Mr. Lord and Art Laffer's praise of Clinton. He was instrumental in creating the Sub-prime collapse. Freddie Mac was created by the Democrats in 1970 to package mortgages (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations). Carter in 1977 passed the CRA. Clinton and Reno enforced Redlining in 1995 that led to the collapse thirteen years later. FOB Raines and Gorelick ran these GSE's into the ground. Now our property value is down 30% and we are supposed to love Bill Clinton.
And let us not forget the Loral, Los Alamos and other security breaches up to and including Sandy Burglar stuffing National Archives in his socks and underwear.
ata777| 6.7.12 @ 9:31AM
clinton also allowed advanced technology to be given to the chinese via the loral corp. that may come back to bite us big time.
CJW| 6.7.12 @ 10:32AM
I agree with Von, Albert and ata.
Obama is so bad that Clinton looks good. Bubba/Hillary were awful, and did not do as much damage to the economy as Obama only because they could not because of Bubba's zipper issues.
But Clinton was worse in nationa security. He never responded to the 1993 WTC attack, the Khobar tower attacks, the embassy attack, the US Cole attack, and refused to take OsamaBenLaden when offered to us. He viewed the terrorrism as a criminal issue with indictmens, and not as a war.
Bubba's poor leadership convinced the terrorrists we would not respond and led directly to 9/11.
Enough of this nostalgia for Bubba, and cleaning up his reputation. He has no principles except saving his skin and reputation.
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 11:05AM
" Carter in 1977 passed the CRA. Clinton and Reno enforced Redlining in 1995 that led to the collapse thirteen years later." This is laughably stupid. First, you don't seem to know what redlining is. The CRA was passed, in part, to eliminate the practice, not to enforce it. Second, the CRA applies to banks and S&Ls;. The majority of the subprime mortgages that were issued in the run up to the housing crisis were originated by institutions that the CRA did not apply to.
Von Mises Jr| 6.7.12 @ 1:03PM
Community Reinvestment Act (1977) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....stment_Act
"Regulatory Reform of 1995" cites Clinton's enforcement in the same at this Wikipedia link.
The work of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought the sub-prime mortgages off the books of banks and mortgage lenders. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
I also cite both Charlie Gasparino's books "The Sellout" and "Bought and Paid for." What is your source and references, genius? MoveOn or DailyKos?
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 2:24PM
Redlining is the practice of refusing to lend money to people in a certain geographic area. The CRA was designed in part to combat redlining, not to enforce it. The CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901) applies to insured depositary institutions. The majority of subprime loans were not originated by depository institutions. (see table 9)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/.....6final.pdf
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 2:24PM
If you'd like more of an overview of the performance of CRA loans, you can start with this speech by university of Chicago professor (and former Bush administration official) Randall Kroszner:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/.....81203a.htm
Key take away:
"Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.
Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.".
Now, while I'm flattered that you think I'm a genius, I would have to humbly disagree with you. So perhaps you can explain to me how an inapplicable law was used to force lenders to make loans that they didn't want to.
CJW| 6.7.12 @ 3:09PM
You are avoiding the issue of loans made to persons who were not finacially qualified. The the intent may have been to prevent redlining, but the effect was that lenders had to show loans made to "minorities" and others in the so-called red lined areas. Of course, there were also loans made to high income borrowers that should not have been made because of the credit ratings.
TLP| 6.7.12 @ 4:11PM
He doesn't care about FACTS, like the FACT that the GAO determined that Franklin Raines, Jones, Jamie Garelick, and ERIC HOLDER, were COOKING THE BOOKS, to ensure their BONUSES, to the tune of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars.
Don't waste your time on one, such as him.
Von Mises Jr| 6.7.12 @ 4:54PM
DRed is Perp is Jefferson is who knows who. Troll wants to hide behind good intentions and liberal spin. But I live in realville. It is a scam like AGW, OWS and this regime. Sub-prime belongs to Carter and Clinton. Period, paragraph and end of story.
You are right TLP. I am not wasting time with Dred. They brought out the top propagandist with tables, charts and statistics. But crap served with caramelized onions on a Kaiser roll is still a crap sandwich.
Dred apparently doesn’t even know when he is being insulted.
TLP| 6.7.12 @ 5:12PM
Indeed.
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 5:15PM
I would have thought the new comment system would put you off your theory that I'm posting under a number of identities. I have but one nom de post, and if you feel otherwise I encourage you to complain to the site administrators about me.
As to the substance of my post, you asked what sources I have to back up my arguments. You have, typically, failed to address them at all. Was there something wrong with the data? Can you explain how a subprime lender like Long Beach Mortgage was forced to make loans to people it didn't want to by a law which did not apply to it?
While I usually ignore your insults, rest assured that I am fully aware you are a condescending prick.
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 5:21PM
And Timmy, you're right that Fannie Mae was run by corrupt crooks. Eric Holder, however, was not one of them. I suspect you have him confused with a different black guy.
CJW| 6.7.12 @ 5:33PM
Eric Holder was second in command after Janet Reno at the Bubba "Justice" dept that did not investigate or charge anyone from Fannie/Freddie.
TLP| 6.7.12 @ 7:47PM
Do your HOMEWORK.
Your boy, Holder, made MILLIONS, while Fannie and Freddie were HEMORRHAGING Money.
His name was on the Report.
Your denial, just proves your Biased Bullsh*t.
DRed| 6.7.12 @ 8:29PM
Is this connected to his work at Covington & Burling?If the Justice Department brought criminal prosecutions against, say, Bank of America (no complaints from me!), you'd be ranting about Obama trying to destroy capitalism. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I can't find any connections between Holder and Fannie Mae other than Covington representing them.
TLP| 6.8.12 @ 6:17AM
He worked with Raines, and Gareleck, AT Fannie and Freddie, where he made MILLIONS$ in BONUSES, making BAD LOANS.
Why are you so Fcking Ignorant/Stupid?
LOOK IT UP!
DRed| 6.8.12 @ 9:41AM
No, he didn't. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans.
Anthony| 6.7.12 @ 9:54AM
Clinton is all about Clinton, first, last, always. He has done more to coursen our culture than any other person in modern history.
His sociopathic personality has become the norm for all pols looking to remain in power, by any means necessary.
Whatever games Clinton is playing with Obozo, either to entice a Hillary 2nd spot, or to defeat Obozo entirely, none of it is for the good of the country. It's all about Clinton.
Obozo is out to finish the destruction of America as a nation, started by Clinton who wounded America's soul and morality.
America's first two black presidents have been the bookends for America's demise. It's time for a new decor.
CJW| 6.7.12 @ 10:38AM
We have the first white authentic black president sort of endorsing the first Mormon to be president instead of endorsing the first not really authentic black gay president. Was it Newsweek or Time that said Obama is the first gay president?
Joellen| 6.7.12 @ 10:36AM
I really dont get the "Conservative Media" trying to sell us the Clintons! Mr. Lord they were and are still part of the extremist left. Bubba might be good at hiding it, and Hillary is great at pretending (i.e. getting shot at by snipers), but that's not going to expunge them from what they truly are. By the way - It was Clinton and Andrew Coumo who are responsible for the fiasco of HUD. Gosh darn it, can our side stop raving about the Clintons and instead rave about the Walkers, Wests, Palins, etc., etc. and promote them for 2016? Clintons, all about what's in it for them, let's not forget that.
Doctor Right| 6.7.12 @ 11:09AM
I really don't care what Clinton's motivations are for selling-out Obama repeatedly over the last 7 days...
...All I know is I love it.
Atta' boy, Bill!
Mimi | 6.7.12 @ 12:39PM
WISE MAN....DR.....I love the one, " You guys have 6 months to save the country" ....thanks to Dick Morris !
In reality Bill coasted thru his 8 years..rode and glided over every potential trouble spot!
His best line ever was when he called Obama "nothing but a Chicago THUG" during the
o8 primary!
Occam's Tool| 6.8.12 @ 7:16PM
Indeed, Dr. R. Watching Willie twist the knife into the back of a man who famously backstabs and discards everyone he works with (Obama) is bee-yoo-tee-ful.
There's something about watching Obama get wrongfooted by the master which is great.
Tom Kyba| 6.7.12 @ 12:04PM
Anthony has it right. Clinton is about Clinton, now and forever. The only one more self-absorbed than Sick Willie is the current Narcissist in Chief.
Anthony| 6.7.12 @ 12:27PM
When Clinton finally departs this earthly realm, the air will be cleaner and the skies brighter.
I will celebrate the news with a fine cigar and my favorite blue shirt with stains on it.
Anthony| 6.7.12 @ 12:38PM
Oh, did I forget to mention that I will also symbolically "water" Clinton's grave while puffing on a fine Montecristo?
I did now.
Mimi | 6.7.12 @ 1:07PM
The 90's were predicted and were , very good for the U.S. economy, due to the baby boomers getting into their forties and reaching the peak of their earning capacity. We grew and thrived!
The Clintons , looking back ENTERTAINED. I Remember feeling bored and a loss of titulation listening to RUSH after they left office...missed all the daily ups and downs!
Bill was never considered un-American...had plenty of warts but the country survived.
This crew is another story...nothing to laugh about here....only "SCARY" and frightened the most for our children and generation to come...it's VERY different.
Who Knows?| 6.7.12 @ 2:22PM
Laffer says, “Clinton was a great president.” Barf!
Jeffrey Lord throws around Eisenhower, FDR, Reagan and Clinton, for what?
The president proposes, congress disposes.
Too much credit goes to the president when things go well, and too much blame when not.
Taxing, spending and regulating are TEAM “sports”, sport!
And, after Obama and his team, led by Pelosi and Reid---with them in total control of two branches of the federal gov’t---spent 2 years proposing-disposing, the owners of the “team” had had enough. Ergo, the Tea Party, 2010 wipeout of dems, etc.
And, after the Wisconsin recall election results, who can doubt that more owners of the American “team” want a complete CHANGE?
Besides, hope is, and always has been, for dopes!
Keep in mind that photo of Obama toking a doobie, when a young dude.
LarryinTexas| 6.7.12 @ 6:55PM
The only reason Bill Clinton can brag about his economic "record" is that the people of America forced him to change his agenda by electing a Republican Congress. The "Reagan Consensus" is not Bill Clinton's, not when we had to drag him kicking and screaming into it.
I only give him credit for seeing the handwriting on the wall, and being willing to engage in some constructive compromise. Otherwise, his foreign policy was abysmal - too much intervention in the
Balkans while he missed the boat on how to regard terrorism and being unwilling to take the necessary steps to successfully wage war on Osama bin Laden; along with his domestic policy of fostering a future housing crisis by initiating the myth of "affordable housing" and letting his cronies such as Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson loot and pillage Fannie and Freddie and buy and force the housing finance markets to invest in sub-prime loans.
There is a lot of blood on Bill Clinton's hands - figuratively and literally. Do not forget that in your eagerness to praise his treatment of Barack the Usurper and trumpet his economic record. Hillary Clinton should also be retired for good. She can be a good grandmother and bake cookies after the Usurper is thrown out on his gargantuan ears.
RJ| 6.7.12 @ 10:37PM
My former economics professor is being overly generous to Bill Clinton (but it is smart to encourage support of the free-market on the Democratic side wherever we can find it). Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform twice and did not originate any of the economic programs which Professor Laffer cites. Clinton's contribution was limited to not obstructing the Congressional GOP's legislation. Admittedly, a much better position than what we have today: Obama's socialist state of redistribution and Harry Reid's fouling of the budget crisis. Have hope America; relief is your's for the choosing in November.
kingsmill| 6.8.12 @ 4:27PM
Sad to see a (usually sound) conservative reduced to building up Bubba's economic "achievements".
As previously stated: Bubba was reduced to irrelevancy due to: 1) his disastrous (but sincere) efforts to impose a Leftist agenda during his first two years; 2) the conservative revolution of 1994 and 3) his political impotence caused by his encounters with a stained blue dress. Come on Mr. Lord we expect better from you than courting Bill Clinton!!!!