Aside from the moral issues, what were Clinton's failings?
 

Most of the hatred of Clinton seems to me to be centered on Monica Lewinsky and Clinton's libido (oh, and a cigar).

But I'm curious what the Clinton-haters feel are his failings in the office of President of the United States. In other words, his personal morality (and lying about his sex life) aside, what are the primary criticisms that the Republicans have regarding Clinton as President?

Raising marginal tax rates, endeavors at socializing medi-
 

cine, judicial appointments, lack of concern for those in military, waffling on military issues, HIS WIFE, implications of whitewater, just to name a few off the top of my head.

His economic policies were, float blue sky and see where it lands.

I was hoping for a little more specificity. I know many of the general philosophical differences between the two parties, and you've hit on a number of those general categories, but I'd like to know just how he failed.

Specifically, without a dissertation, from memory only,
 

he raised the top marignal tax after Reagan closed some of the loopholes, thereby eliminating investment capital and by raising capital gains, he discouraged hard capital investment.

He had an opportunity for insurance reform as it relates health care, instead tried to develop a single payer system and squandered an opportunity to modify our nation's largest tax drain.

His monetary policies also floated the reason for the internet investment bubble and may have contributed to the Enron scandal.

Those off the top of my head.

I can think of no international diplomacy successes, and no I don't consider Bosnia a success.

A patient of mine just recommended...
 

a book to me on this very subject. Its called Dereliction of Duty, written by a retired USAF Coloniel.

From what I've heard and the review I read on the book, it is devoted to first hand accounts of some of the crap that went on in Washington during the Clinton Administration.

He is bringing it for me to borrow later on in the week. I'll let you know I think.

By the way, this guy (my patient) is not a right wing nut as you might expect. He's an equal opportunity basher of both politics parties on either side of the aisle. Oh by the way, he's a recently retired attorney, so like our other JD brothers on the board here, what he says has got to be credible, right?

Right . . . attorneys don't lie - unless we can gain some advantage from it.

I think Americans are beginning to wax nostalgic for Clinton. A great communicator. Seemed to be successful, hopeful, heady times. Deficit was disappearing....

His failing was that you rarely got the impression he truly believed in anything. That everything was to ensure his power and success. Of course, that often dovetailed with the interests of the American people, but not always.

One thing he really screwed up on was gun control. But I could be biased, as I am a PROUD GUN OWNER!

Just think, for 24 years the US Presidency could be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

Jeb will have to throw his hat in the ring in 2012

In defense of Clintonomics
 

Archaea sure isn't the first on CB to denounce Clinton's policies as failures, but alas, the first I've seen to offer any evidence. Most CBers either have a selective memory of 110 or get their training from Rush Limbaugh.

There's a general agreement among economists that income tax rates do not affect growth. As for capital gains, capital investment faces diminishing returns and can't produce the sustained growth of the Clinton years anyway.

Besides, Clinton recognized that deficit reduction is necessary to hold the interest rate down. He increased social spending by only 3% (cf. 9% for W.) and cut welfare rolls by 60%.

The boom of the 90s is due mainly to that the govt invented the internet 30 years ago. Productivity growth, unlike capital, does not exhibit diminishing returns. But Clinton promoted gov-biz collaboration on R&D the same way Asian countries have done to launch their miracles, and thereby snatched tech leadership back from Japan. Externalities like R&D are always underfunded by the private sector, so require a gov boost.

Regarding monetary policy, the president has no control; the Fed does and is independent. I do believe Clinton is at fault, but it's excessive deregulation that caused companies to cook their books and led to the bubble.

I'd love to see a response to ChinoCoug. (I'm not being facetious.) I have very little understanding of economics, and while my general impression is that Clinton did well economically and Bush is not doing well, I have nothing to base that on. I think it's the discussion back and forth that helps me to understand it a little better and to make my own judgment calls in forming my opinions.