AHC: conservatives easily accept Clinton as legitimately president in 1993?

What exactly does "legitimately" mean here? I don't think that any respectable number of Republicans maintained that Clinton's election was illegal. They did of course point out that he only got 43 percent of the vote (and no doubt exaggerated the extent to which Perot voters would have voted for Bush in a two-way race). And they were no doubt determined to do what they could to block his major policy initiatives. But they would have been equally determined if he had won a clear-cut victory in a two-way race. And by the way, let's not forget that Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, something that would be unthinkable today.
 
Last edited:
No Gulf War. In the aftermath of Desert Storm, Bush's approval ratings shot to 90%, and everyone was so confident that the Republicans would take the White House again, that even some Democratic commentators were suggesting that the party should just skip the presidential race, and donate the money they save to charity. When Clinton started polling strong against Bush, I remember telling people that he stood a good chance of winning, and was basically told that I was crazy.

To say that losing the election to Clinton was a disappointment to the GOP would be an understatement. And with all the Clinton hatred in his first term, and getting creamed in the midterms, everyone assumed that '96 would be when the public had finally had enough of him. But alas...
 
I don't think that any respectable number of Republicans maintained that Clinton's election was illegal.

Rush Limbaugh had an anti-Clinton segment on his show called America Held Hostage. Which, if it wasn't implying that Clinton's presidency was illegal, at least implied that his rule was somehow being forced on the country illegitimately.
 
Rush Limbaugh had an anti-Clinton segment on his show called America Held Hostage. Which, if it wasn't implying that Clinton's presidency was illegal, at least implied that his rule was somehow being forced on the country illegitimately.
it was more along the lines of 'big city libruls have placed a left wing straighjacket on US politics, in defiance of good clean honest conservative Americans, who really know what's best for America'.
 

nbcman

Donor
No Gulf War. In the aftermath of Desert Storm, Bush's approval ratings shot to 90%, and everyone was so confident that the Republicans would take the White House again, that even some Democratic commentators were suggesting that the party should just skip the presidential race, and donate the money they save to charity. When Clinton started polling strong against Bush, I remember telling people that he stood a good chance of winning, and was basically told that I was crazy.

To say that losing the election to Clinton was a disappointment to the GOP would be an understatement. And with all the Clinton hatred in his first term, and getting creamed in the midterms, everyone assumed that '96 would be when the public had finally had enough of him. But alas...
... the Republicans nominated Senator Bob Dole who bored the electorate and President Clinton cruised to victory.
 
... the Republicans nominated Senator Bob Dole who bored the electorate and President Clinton cruised to victory.

True, but if Clinton was as hated as everyone said, it shouldn't have mattered that Dole was a snorefest. Pretty much anyone without a felony record should have been able to beat Clinton.
 

nbcman

Donor
True, but if Clinton was as hated as everyone said, it shouldn't have mattered that Dole was a snorefest. Pretty much anyone without a felony record should have been able to beat Clinton.
Everyone didn't say President Clinton was 'hated'. Parts of the electorate demonized President Clinton wasn't hated by the general population. Plus the economy was doing better in 96 than when President Clinton was elected which always helps the incumbent.
 
Rush Limbaugh had an anti-Clinton segment on his show called America Held Hostage. Which, if it wasn't implying that Clinton's presidency was illegal, at least implied that his rule was somehow being forced on the country illegitimately.
I think the rise of right-wing radio has had a huge effect on American politics
 
Clinton runs as a Republican (with the exadct same platform and enacting the exact same policies). There.
If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, the GOP would laud him as one of our best ever Presidents.
Very early in his presidency, Clinton lifted the ban on gay and lesbian Americans serving in the military. Then he compromised and partially reversed himself by enacting “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” All through executive action.

I can kind of see why some conservatives didn’t like the guy.

And, I’ve read that since a new policy is followed more diligently than an old policy, the number of people being investigated and driven out of the military actually increased. And therefore, if you believe lesbian and gay persons have the same rights as everyone else, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has to be judged a failure, at least in the short- and medium-term. I guess there’s a case to be made that the policy was a way station toward full and equal rights.
 
Everyone didn't say President Clinton was 'hated'. Parts of the electorate demonized President Clinton wasn't hated by the general population. Plus the economy was doing better in 96 than when President Clinton was elected which always helps the incumbent.

Well, I didn't mean that he actually WAS hated, I mean there was a perception that he was unpopular. On the left, some of the people who agreed with his general policies were sure that he wouldn't win in '96, and the right kind of assumed that everyone hated him as much as they did.
 
And on April 29, 1993, President Clinton nominated Lani Guinier to be Assistant Atty. General for Civil Rights. She was an academic and a black woman, and conservatives quickly labeled her a “quota queen.” Seems like dirty play on their part, but the conservatives did find some writings they could latch onto.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-06-05-9306050143-story,amp.html

Her views were complicated.

After Clinton withdrew her nomination, in interview way back then, I remember her talking about this approach was what a lot of corporations did with their voting stock. A multi-member board of directors, and apparently each share of stock gave you the same number of votes which you could spread out or use all for one candidate. And as she explained, if minorities [whether racial, ideological, or anything else] voted strategically, they could often elect at least some representation to the board. But then again . . . academics talk and write about all kinds of ideas. Guinier had also served in the Justice Dept. during when Carter was president.

politicians don’t seem fully aware of just how much people resent complexity foisted upon them.

Not freely chosen. People might do fantasy baseball and Internet poker all day long. But foisted upon them. And I really think liberals under-estimate this quite a bit more than conservatives.

Clinton withdrew Guinier’s nomination on June 3, 1993.
 
Last edited:
And on April 29, 1993, President Clinton nominated Lani Guinier to be Assistant Atty. General for Civil Rights. She was an academic and a black woman, and conservatives quickly labeled her a “quota queen.” Seems like dirty play on their part, but the conservatives did find some writings they could latch onto.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-06-05-9306050143-story,amp.html

Her views were complicated.

After Clinton withdrew her nomination, in interview way back then, I remember her talking about this approach was what a lot of corporations did with their voting stock. A multi-member board of directors, and apparently each share of stock gave you the same number of votes which you could spread out or use all for one candidate. And as she explained, if minorities [whether racial, ideological, or anything else] voted strategically, they could often elect at least some representation to the board. But then again . . . academics talk and write about all kinds of ideas. Guinier had also served in the Justice Dept. during when Carter was president.

politicians don’t seem fully aware of just how much people resent complexity foisted upon them.

Not freely chosen. People might do fantasy baseball and Internet poker all day long. But foisted upon them. And I really think liberals under-estimate this quite a bit more than conservatives.

Clinton withdrew Guinier’s nomination on June 3, 1993.

I'm not sure how much this has to do with conservative opposition to Clinton. It seems more like a case of weakness on Clinton's part. Even Janet Reno appeared to believe that Clinton was wrong. Clinton's nomination was going to get conservative opposition no matter who it was, that's just politics.
 
The problem, is that Clinton's weakness was amplified by a conservative sentiment to "find" an enemy after the Soviet Union of Godless communits broke up. There were Red Scare enthusiasts who had their bubbles popped. The new buzzword would be "Democrat is the new communist." And it had a faith-based element. The four horsewomen of the apocalypse were Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Joycelyn Elders and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
 
Last edited:
. . . It seems more like a case of weakness on Clinton's part. Even Janet Reno appeared to believe that Clinton was wrong. . .
The problem, is that Clinton's weakness was amplified by a conservative sentiment to "find" and enemy after the Soviet Union of Godless communits broke up. . .
I urge you both to please reconsider. "weak" is the criticism conservatives make against us liberals. Obviously, I'm a liberal and I'm speaking as one.

And as far as Clinton withdrawing the nomination of Lani Guinier to one of the assistant attorney general positions, I'd say it's like Texas Hold'em poker. Sometimes you go all in and sometimes you don't, and yes, you can make mistakes both ways.

-------------------------------

At the same time, conservatives blamed Clinton for being the wrong kind of authoritarian.

They pointed to Ruby Ridge, and then to the raid on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. In my universe, both of these involved bad trends in law enforcement which way pre-date Clinton. I think one of these involved the ATF (traditionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) which is a federal law enforcement agency which some conservatives particularly don't like, but it hugely pre-dates Clinton.
 
I urge you both to please reconsider. "weak" is the criticism conservatives make against us liberals. Obviously, I'm a liberal and I'm speaking as one.
I, too, supported the Clintons, voting for them for president. I too, consider myself a liberal. How liberal? My first vote for president went to George McGovern when I turned 18. I never thought Bill's governance was weak. But conservatives did have a point over the Lewinsky scandal exposing a personal weakness. See, a Christian conservative pointed out to me in 1998 that a president has an obligation to abide by the highest standards of personal conduct and serve as a role model for the growing generations. I had to agree he had a point. Too bad we had no chance to discuss the current administration!
 
The conservative objections to Bill Clinton's presidency had less to do with any allegations that his election was illegitimate, and more to do with his personal conduct, amplified by the rise of talk radio, cable television, and towards the end of his presidency, the Internet. Having Clinton's personal conduct be either more upstanding or more effectively covered up would have made it harder for the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to get going, while a different media landscape would have prevented conspiracy theories from entering the mainstream.
 
Yeah but the Arkansas Project? There really isn’t a way to stop it given the crazy billionaire running it.

“The Arkansas Project”: a four-year, $2.4 million effort to dig up enough dirt to ruin Clinton. There was no shortage of kooks in the Arkansas Project, but perhaps the most important kook, because most of the money came from him, was Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to a big hunk of Mellon oil-and-steel billions. He had poured many millions into right-wing causes over the years – our authors estimate $300 million – and now he didn’t mind spending a few more, as he told friends, “to get that goddamn guy out of the White House.”

With that aim, he subsidized newspapers, magazines, book publishers and their writers to portray Clinton as (1) an international drug trafficker, (2) the murderer of Clinton’s longtime friend and White House aide Vincent Foster, who committed suicide shortly after arriving in Washington, (3) the defrauder of an Arkansas savings and loan, and (4) the ravisher of half the women in Arkansas.
 
Last edited:
Top