But those folks got to be in charge of the US Congress at least partly due to reactions by the public against perceived bumbling and goofups by the Clinton Administration in its first two years. Would there have been a Republican takeover of Congress if Clinton had proposed a Canadian-style national health insurance plan rather than the botched mess that he did propose (and then couldn't get passed)? Barkley Rosser On Tue, 26 May 1998 12:35:04 -0700 Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> Re:
> >
> >That is, Clinton is the leader of the anti-reform forces in the U.S., and
> >he is also the leader of the forces trying to reform progressive
> >legislation from the past out of existence. Clinton is not a weak and/or
> >wobbling friend of workers: he is the political leader of the Enemy. To
> >defend Clinton is not an allowable option for anyone who cares to be
> >considered a positive reformist.
> >
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I thought that the leaders of anti-reform forces in the United States had
> names like...
>
> Trent Lott
> Tom DeLay
> Dick Armey
> Newt Gingrich
> Phil Gramm
>
> And I thought that one of the (admittedly few) good things about Bill
> Clinton was that all of those guys hated his guts, and that spending all of
> their time trying to nail Clinton prevented them from using their
> Congressional majority to actually do more truly destructive things...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu