Missing Bill
Stephen Chapman misses him. So do I.
Even during the 90′s, when I was still an adamant Republican, I had great respect for President Clinton’s modest approach to government — an approach that stood in stark contrast to the immodesty with which he conducted the rest of his life. And yes, I thought the Republicans at the time were idots for trying to make Clinton’s personal immodesty a focal point of their campaign to return to the White House, ignoring the productive relationship they enjoyed with him while governing. (In fact, it was respect for Bill Clinton’s governance that first convinced me Rush Limbaugh had the marks of a classless buffoon. What’s old is new, I guess.)
That being said — at the risk of irritating the same readers I’ve irritated before with similar comments — I will continue to argue, until I can’t argue anymore, that a material part of Bill Clinton’s effectiveness was the counterbalance he faced in Newt Gingrich. Neither man was a saint, nor is either of them today. But their unique combination, their persistent tug-of-war yielded a budget surplus and a generally prosperous nation.
And that’s precisely why I anticipate, with more than minor glee, a return of the Senate to Republican control in 2010. Obama needs his own Gingrich. Finding him will surely help the new President become the great President he’s capable of being, because greatness is never born of one person’s capabilities alone. It’s born from exceedingly capable people who are tossed into cauldrons of conflict, where they don’t get everything they want, and are thus “forced to refine and sharpen and improve their ideas.”
OK. Go ahead, now. Let me have it. Tell me how terribly wrong and misguided I am. You know you want to.
9 Responses to “Missing Bill”
Oh it would be nice to balance Obama in the senate with a GOP Senator who had integrity, morality and a true wish to represent the needs of the People instead of rich special interest.
But I'm not big on mythical beings.
Do you feel that the GOP counter-balance to Mr. Obama has to be so saintly because Mr. Obama is so immoral and lacking in integrity?
Our system depends on counterbalance and functions best when Congress and the Executive branch take their oversight roles seriously. I can't think of a time when that worked well with one party controlling both branches- and as a Republican, I have no qualms in saying that the last administration did not do well with a rubberstamping GOP Congress.
It really doesn't matter as much whether the people involved are 'saintly'- the system itself does a better job in correcting for shortcomings when there's balance of power.
Here, Pete….a little backup from some guy named James Madison:
Perhaps some people believe that Barack Obama is so exceptionally righteous to not need the checks and balances, but our founders specifically created our system so that we'd never have to rely on any man being flawless in judgement or absent of self interest which can cloud decisions on the interests of the nation.
CStanley — It has been awhile (perhaps too long) since we have found something on which we can vehemently agree. Thanks for the comments, and for the excerpt from Mr. Madison.
I absolutely do not want to see the current crop of Republicans return to power in any branch of government. They've proven to be nothing but dangerously incompetent demagogues.
Compromising with that group is NOT going to yield superior legislation.
lol…the Republican party will, by no means, have even a remote chance at gaining the majority of seats in the US Senate for 2010. lol…the very notion is cheek-cramping laughable!
What Chris said…
So, apparently there are no longer any checks and balances whatsoever since certain people will vote “D” no matter what.
We're screwed.