So Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the only successful presidents since the Depression?

Now, that has to be an opinion held by only one person out of the six billion on Earth.

No, the story cites Ike and Clinton. I'd personally argue Ike did little more than Reagan to get rid of the Welfare State. Reagan was only a rhetorical conservative.

Now if you'd said the only successful Presidents since the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, then you might have something.

FDR was a failure.

FDR was indeed a failure and a disaster as was WJC. I argue the latter was far worse because he open the Pandora's box of Islamic terrorism and let all the evil atavists out to do their worst with the blessing of a now acquiescent world.

Clinton was a free trader and began the reformation of the Welfare State and is, by any measure, a success.

Substitute the word 'began' with the words 'acceded to' and I'll almost agree with you.

Clinton began nothing of his own. His 'success' was an almost Zelig-like ability to project himself into situations where improvements were already happening (the peace dividend, the increases in the rate of productivity, the drop in the crime rate, etc.) and make them his issues.

Because there were no real dramatic problems at the fore during the 90s, he 'succeeded'. Had economic conditions been in 1998 what they were in August 1974, he would have resigned.

He was a suit, smarter than the average Democrat (to be sure), but his party imploded during and following his tenure. His behavior since has been alternatively slef-serving and disgraceful.

he ran on ending Welfare as we know it and succeeded in doing so.

Jim:

I believe you are closer to the truth. IIRC, Clinton vetoed two welfare bills and only signed the third because the 1996 election was approaching. Talk is cheaper and campaign rhetoric is cheapest of all.

I guess I should have gotten gold stars for eating those awful canned peas when I was small even though I couldn't leave the table until I had eaten them. Thank goodness mashed potatoes and gravy were a staple at most suppers. I'd still be sitting there today.

I'm intrigued - did he run that way in 1992?

Dick Morris told him in the spring of 1996 he would lose if he vetoed the bill again (doubtful, in my opinion), so he signed it.

He gambled the hard left wouldn't (couldn't) hurt him for it, and he was right. End of story.

How quickly y'all forget:

"Our New Covenant" (William Jefferson Clinton: 1992 DNC Acceptance Address, delivered 16 July 1992, New York, NY)

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billclinton1992dnc.htm

Now, I don’t have all the answers, but I do know the old ways don’t work. Trickle down economics has sure failed. And big bureaucracies, both private and public, they’ve failed too.

That’s why we need a new approach to government, a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement, more choices for young people in the schools they attend -- in the public schools they attend. And more choices for the elderly and for people with disabilities and the long-term care they receive. A government that is leaner, not meaner; a government that expands opportunity, not bureaucracy; a government that understands that jobs must come from growth in a vibrant and vital system of free enterprise.

I call this approach a "New Covenant," a solemn agreement between the people and their government based not simply on what each of us can take but what all of us must give to our nation.

We offer our people a new choice based on old values. We offer opportunity. We demand responsibility. We will build an American community again. The choice we offer is not conservative or liberal. In many ways, it's not even Republican or Democratic. It's different. It's new. And it will work. It will work because it is rooted in the vision and the values of the American people.

Of all the things George Bush has ever said that I disagree with, perhaps the thing that bothers me most, is how he derides and degrades the American tradition of seeing and seeking a better future. He mocks it as the “vision thing.”

But just remember what the Scripture says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

I hope -- I hope nobody in this great hall tonight, or in our beloved country has to go through tomorrow without a vision. I hope no one ever tries to raise a child without a vision. I hope nobody ever starts a business or plants a crop in the ground without a vision. For where there is no vision, the people perish.

One of the reasons we have so many children in so much trouble in so many places in this nation is because they have seen so little opportunity, so little responsibility, so little loving, caring community, that they literally cannot imagine the life we are calling them to lead.

And so I say again: Where there is no vision, America will perish. What is the vision of our New Covenant?

An America with millions of new jobs and dozens of new industries, moving confidently toward the 21st century.

An America that says to entrepreneurs and businesspeople: We will give you more incentives and more opportunity than ever before to develop the skills of your workers and to create American jobs and American wealth in the new global economy. But you must do your part; you must be responsible. American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs.

That’s what this New Covenant's all about.

An America in which the doors of colleges are thrown open once again to the sons and daughters of stenographers and steelworkers. We'll say: Everybody can borrow the money to go to college. But you must do your part. You must pay it back from your paychecks or, better yet, by going back home and serving your communities.

Just think of it. Think of it. Millions of energetic young men and women serving their country by policing the streets or teaching the children or caring for the sick; or working with the elderly and people with disabilities; or helping young people to stay off drugs and out of gangs, giving us all a sense of new hope and limitless possibilities.

That’s what this New Covenant is all about.

An America in which health care is a right, not a privilege, in which we say to all of our people: “Your government has the courage finally to take on the health care profiteers and make health care affordable for every family.” But, you must do your part -- preventive care, prenatal care, childhood immunization, saving lives, saving money, saving families from heartbreak.

That’s what the New Covenant is all about.

An America in which middle-class incomes, not middle-class taxes, are going up.

An America, yes, in which the wealthiest few, those making over $200,000 a year, are asked to pay their fair share.

An America in which the rich are not soaked, but the middle class is not drowned, either.

Responsibility starts at the top.

That’s what the New Covenant is all about.

An America where we end welfare as we know it. We will say to those on welfare: You will have and you deserve the opportunity through training and education, through child care and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work, because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life.

That’s what the New Covenant is all about.

Well, Bill (Orrin) - how'd your "support" for school choice work out? Vetoed a few new covenants along the way, didn't you? And then welfare reform, vetoed it twice, didn't you? And that objection to 'coddling tyrants' thing - that went over well, didn't it? Except for Milosevic, every other tyrant on the globe did pretty well while you were President. And 'championing democracy' in Haiti - anothere big plus for you, wasn't it?

And the drumbeat against 'them', you really perfected that in 1997/8, didn't you? Dick Gephardt may have coined the phrase 'the politics of personal destruction', but you and Carville and Hillary and Mitchell and Daschle and Ann Lewis, and yes, Anthony Pellicano, worked it like never before. It was almost Nixonian, if I may say so myself.

And while you didn't really mention it in your convention address, you campaigned on cutting taxes and then raised them as soon as you could. Was that an oversight?

You see, Bill - we don't forget that you said a lot as a candidate. And as President. But we never really believed most of it, and you didn't give us any reason to think otherwise.

I passed and signed two trade bills asnd Welfare Reform. The Gipper saved SS and Medicare as they were. He's the New Dealer. I'm a Compassionate Conservative.

jim:

You seem bitter that he was a successful conservative not a failed liberal.

Bitter? no - because he wasn't really anything. It wasn't like Tom Harkin or Russ Feingold was President.

Of course, on substance, my main point of disagreement would be judges and vouchers and the general drift of government (and the inability to take advantage of his opportunity to work SS, as you always say). Clinton wasn't the enemy, but he wasn't a great President, either.

Oh, and Bill - you're hogging Newt's (and even George Sr.'s) glory on the trade bills and welfare reform. Those were Republican ideas and Republican legislation. You signed them - you didn't pass them. Check out the vote totals (D and R) the next time you are on-line.

Question for all: would Bill be a free trader today?

You miss the point of the 90s--it was just a race to see which party could claim to be the Third Way party in America. I wanted it to be us, but Newt wanted it to be the GOP. Gore screwed me.

Absolutely. That's why I shut the government down, pitched a hissy fit when they made me sit in the back of Air Force One, and got myself fired as Speaker -- it was all part of my master plan to make the GOP the Third Way party. Nobody understands this but Bill and me.

I did. Game, Set, Match.

Bill - you should have replaced Gore in '96. Would have been messy, but you might be viewed differently today. I suspect you always knew he would let you down.

Newt - you should have let Armey be Speaker. Or even a figurehead like Phil Crane. You would have been Majority Leader (or Chair of some committee) and DeLay would have been Whip. A better line-up.

George - you're the MAN (at least, most of the time). Loved your banter with the press today, BTW.

OJ - I learned here that Clinton wasn't Satan. Perhaps he is the Democratic equivalent of Nixon (with a little less paranoia, and a whole lot more libido, of course). However, Clinton never had a month like October 1973, and he never made any decisions of real consequence. He wasn't interested in a Third Way - he was always looking for the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Ways. Triangulation was easy for someone who did not have a foundation. Remember, anyone who relies on someone like David Gergen for political advice is not the expert you think he is.

jim:

A president who avoids having a crisis on his watch deserves credit not opprobrium. Coolidge was a very good president for instance. Clinton was as good as a Democrat can be--Clevelandesque.

"Responsibility starts at the top. And that is what the New Covenant is all about".

"My administration will be the most ethical in history".

Two quotes for Clinton's 'legacy'.

I thought of Coolidge, too - but the comparison is not really there.

I accept your pronouncement that Clinton was as good as a Democrat can be, especially considering the alternatives from 1992: Kerrey, Tsongas, Brown, Harkin, etc.