NYT/AP: (Pres.) Clinton to Dems: Don't Fear Tough Issues

Clinton to Dems: Don't Fear Tough Issues
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 29, 2005
Filed at 11:07 p.m. ET


AUSTIN (AP) -- Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.

''You can't say 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here,'' Clinton said. ''If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do.''

Clinton, whose 2004 memoir ''My Life'' was a best seller, drew roaring applause during his speech from the several hundred people gathered in the Texas House chamber to kick off the 10th annual Texas Book Festival, an event started by first lady Laura Bush when her husband was governor....

***

Clinton attributed Republicans' control of Congress to Democratic candidates' inability or unwillingness to ''stand up and be heard'' on issues that matter to people. For example, he said, Democrats too often are unwilling to talk about abortion because they're afraid of virulent reactions from anti-abortion groups....

***

Clinton also criticized political reporters and authors for failing to use reason and common sense in their writing and failing to dig deeply into stories. Instead, he said, reporters let officials get away with saying things that aren't true so stories include comment from both sides....


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Clinton-Book-Festival.html

gangsters

Gonna get grounded again...

Clinton to Kerry in 1993 - We're not going to let you open the books on BCCI...Alan Greenspan doesn't want me to.

about this that - and Clinton's folding?

God, are they ALL complicit?

economy.

Even if that were true, the world could better handle a few years of economic uncertainty and recover better than it can from the costs of NOT EXPOSING the depth of treachery in BCCI. There would have been no 9-11, no global terrorism, and no case for permanent wars in oil-rich regions.

And NO BUSH WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN.

been exposed, the other horrors would not have come about. These people do create their own reality.

And ours.

Thanks for the info. Hope you're doing well.

financiers (Bush cronies), official governments, and their banking institutions.

Had the world been made aware of the unholy alliances that were funding the very chaos that BushInc purported to be fighting, it would be far less likely they could have proceeded as they did and still do.

Bill Clinton can't lecture anyone in the Democratic Party about taking on "tough issues". What a farce.

He stood up when Clinton advised him to endorse anti gay props. I suspect he is good on abortion too. It that sense, at least, he stands head and shoulders above most in Congress.

Hopefully we will have a candidate in 2008 that is willing to fight to
to regain democratic control over this country and put in place policies and practices to provide that ALL
Americans have an opportunity for the "American Dream". I guess he/she will first have to repair all the damage from the Dubya years. Someone also needs to question how republican policies & practices do NOT line up with Christian principles so they can stop spewing the BS that they are on the moral high ground.......

:hi:

Forget about 2008 for a second and concentrate on the bigger prixze here, congress in 2006.. We cannot underestimate the republicans will to hold onto power but 2006 offer an opportunity of a life time we take full advantage of the situation!!

Arizona. Anyone who wants to run for office get x amount of dollars from the taxpayers to do so and that's IT. No corporate contributions. No private funds. No private contributions. Every is on the same playing field. I would have the same chance to run as Dick Cheney would.

Ah, but they would never let it happen. They're all too hooked on the money.

would even acknowledge it existed. Neither did the media.

Then the media started pushing McCain-Feingold without ever mentioning the Clean Elections bill proffered FIRST by Kerry and Wellstone.

Fortunately some states have now adopted the language of that bill for their own state laws, so in some ways it still lives on.

Until we get that issue straitened out, our country does not belong to the people. It belongs to the corporation. I'm not that optimistic about out chances...

a start, and more will likely join them. Hopefully Ohio will after being flayed by their campaign dollar scandals.

We need an "outsider." Tonight, on Tim Russert, the panel named names...Democrats who had voted for the Iraq business that didn't have a post-invasion plan....Kerry, etc. the whole gange.

Wes Clark is clear of that mess...another plus!! In addition to being against the entire invasion from the getgo!

FactCheck.org Clark Waffles on Iraq War


http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html&e=9797

He is not better than those Dems who voted for the IWR.

Funny how they keep pushing that lie.

really a mouthpiece for the carlyle group.

And tim russert's head is bulging with stored lies.

.

as well. That "lock box"idea sounds real goos about now

.

or serious campaign finance reform?


to get from here to there requires
some fixin'

post-McCain-Feingold:

"...corporate influence has become so pervasive that the very concept of impartial governance has been turned on its head: lobbyists have become government officials; and government officials have become lobbyists."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11460

encouraging message, but with corporate america better represented in Washington than us ... well, no need preaching to the choir ...

knowing DAMN WELL that the GOP controls both.

Oct. 29, 2005, 9:59PM

Democrats must address tough issues, Clinton says
Ex-president talks to crowd in Texas House for book festival
By LIZ AUSTIN
Associated Press

AUSTIN - Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues like abortion and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.

"You can't say, 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people, then find something else to do."

Clinton, whose 2004 memoir My Life was a bestseller, drew roaring applause during his speech from the several hundred people gathered in the Texas House chamber to kick off the 10th annual Texas Book Festival, an event begun by first lady Laura Bush when her husband was governor.

Up to 30,000 people and more than 170 authors — including novelist Salman Rushdie, historian David McCullough and children's author Lemony Snicket — are expected to attend the free weekend festival, which raises money for public libraries.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3425565
(Free registration required)

:sarcasm:

still perplexed on how we ended up w/a 2 term *

ground out of fear they'll get shot down about the BJ incident. They're so boldly capitalizing on our own shame about it ... while they are in fact the ones who are evil incarnate.

LOL, I was wondering about that one for a bit.

was even created!!!

I love daylight savings time...

and start making thier voice heard even if they have to yell so loud the other person's mic is picking them up.

this administration continues.

If the support is behind him from their whole base (not just the progressive wing) then they will come out strong.

they say and if the MSM spins what they say out of control.
That's exactly what happened in 2000.

Clinton of course never talks about the media's role.

I watch the House and Senate everyday and all the little news conferences they have, I would say about 1% of what the Democrats say make it to MSM and that is a 30 second soundbite.

As for Clinton he needs to start paying attention to what Dems are saying instead of hanging out with Bush 1.Remember he likes good ole Dubya.

:applause:

if the MSM echo-chamber repeats their lies. Your message just doesn't get through without the cooperation of those whose just would be to spread the message on TV, the papers and the radio.

And exuse me but when did Clinton "address tough issues"?
He was triangulating for 6 years at the advise of a Rep hack named Dick Morris.
Clinton advised Dems for years to avoid talking about
those "tough issues" meaning the ideological issues like gun-control and abortion.
He advised Kerry to support the gay marriage amendments in 2004.
His strategy so far has been to talk as little as possible about
divisive issues. Now he says that Dems should openly talk about it as
much as possible.

n/t

Tell her to denounce the war, and to demand full investigation of the lies that led us there. Tell her to raise the minimum wage, and to call for environmental regulation. Tell her to create some freakin' jobs. Instead of wasting her time decrying video game violence, she could be stopping the slaughter of thousands, and the paupering of millions.

Tell her to be a goddamned senator, Bill.

forget about Grand Theft Auto...let's focus on Grand Theft America.

Nice succinct summation.

Or does that mean that we should be more republicans than them on the hot-button issues, as Clinton suggested Kerry to be.

and spends entirely too much time with people who deliberately set out to ruin his presidency.

Exactly what some Dems need to hear right about now - the worst possible thing we can do is back away from tough issues. Taking a strong stance on tough issues, even if it's an unpopular or "wrong" stance, earns respect from voters, and helps win elections.

his thug father.

I hope he does it. He is a newsmaker. He has a platform. He has nothing to be afraid of, nothing to run for. He can break the spiral of silence around some of these issues where we so many Dems have been intimidated by the right.

Kerry hasn't been bad on these latest fights, and despite what evident oppportunism colors his words on war and terrorism issues lately, he has not engaged in the sickening retreats and cave-ins repeatedly seen from big and senior Demos lately: Leahy, Obama, Feingold, Salazar, nearly all the rare Demos in the south (giving up even on populism), Lieberman , the Sen from Washington "the mom in tennis shoes" not just on traditional issues, but for god's sake on right wing, pro-white man as master of every fucking thing-based issues.

For starters, Democrats would do well to abort and apologize for their proposal to send more troops to Iraq and stop this nonsense about "achieving our goals there".

He is for bringing 20,000 soldiers home at the end of the year - definately not sending more there. He also wants the Iraqi's doing the search and destroy and the policing - the most dangerous actions. He says the Iraqis need to suceed at these. He wants the US in rear garrisoned positions. The goal is to safely pull out while the Iraqis take over, In conjunction he describes what he recommends as a political solution.

he has claimed in that speech to have been duped. Not buyin' it. His plan is not achievable under his terms by the end of the year and he knows it. He and those who still support him need to come to terms with that. You need to face it that his time has come and gone, stop the taunts and accusing his critics of eating our own or being freepers, all these things that are flung at Kerry sceptics. He has supported since 1998 "action" against Iraq (understood at the time to mean broadening of actions beyond what was already going on: air attacks and cruise missiles, and probably other covert on-the-ground commando type warfare-so the meaning is obvious), has ignored e.g., Ritters shift to acknowledging the lack of WMDs over these years and the peeling off of people like Levin over that time to vote against the IWR. Anyway, he has not supported the Tauscher approach of more troops-that's good.

Read his IWR senate speech it is hazy and contradictory in a way that would presage his positions taken in 2004. He was probably wrong in 1990, he was wrong in 2002. He needs to admit these errors in judgement and admit that we must end the illegal, bloody occupation.

freepers. I'm pretty harmless. Ritter himself in 1998 was a source of some of the information that there were WMD. I think what is happening today is that the Senators are screaming that they want the truth.

A co-equal branch of government was lied to - It is likely that these lies were not just one administration. From comments in 2003, Kerry had assurances from Democrats and Republicans that it was true. I think what you see in the IWR was the uncertainty caused by the fact that he was not certain about what he was shown - he opted to get the inspectors in. If Bush were an honest man and Iraq was clean, this would have ended things.

I think he very likely considered it possible that Bush would go to war with or without the IWR. The IWR did get the inspectors in - this could have been the turning point away from war. They were inspecting the Presidential palaces and destroying missiles. If Bush would strike when this was happening, do you really think he wouldn't have struck without the IWR? Probably the only impacts of the IWR were to split the Democrats and to delay the war maybe 4 months.

Kerry's plan is over 12 to 15 months - it sounds like it sends some appropriate messages and would at least semd a signal that we don't want an occupation. We will likely never know if it would work, just as we don't know if soldiers would already be coming home if his 2004 were employed - because Bush will not implement it.

As an initial plan, if Kerry were President, I assume that it would be tweaked after consultation with the military, intelligence agencies, state department, and other countries. As an opposition plan, it simply acts as a plan that would match his goals - and it does. It does open the question of what Bush's goals really are - because him actions don't match the goals.

I don't know if Kerry will get another chance - a part of me reading last year about how he often fought his own party to do the right thing - felt he was a very unusual candidate surfacing through merit rather than pushed by mentors. He is neither a party or media favorite. But at this point, he has the best plan on Iraq that I've heard and in my opinion he has far more gravitas that any mentioned competitors.

Sorry, if my response to you seemed confrontational? It just seemed you were ignoring what he said - I can see that you simply don't see it as likely successful (which is a moot point - as it won't be implemented). It seems you list a fair number of Democrats with whom you have problems, which do you like?

PS: I don't think Kerry was wrong in 1990 - it was seen as a success because it was quick, others paid for it and we won. The world never gets to see the alternative path. Bush I wanted that war, April Gillespie gave signals to Saddam that we wouldn't intervene. Bush I did get a coalition - but he might have been able to negotiate a retreat if he spent more time and energy on it. Saddam was our creature - we armed him for the Iraq/Iran war, the poison gasses he had came in part from us. Rumsfeld shook his hand (in the 80s) AFTER the gassing of the Kurds which is one of the crimes he is being tried for.

The war resulted in punishing sanctions that hurt the Iraqis, especially children and the poor. It also led to bases in Saudi Arabia that were one proximate cause of the Bin Laden's anger against the US. It's possible that if Gore didn't give Bush the 1 vote he needed, Bush I may have let negotiations have more time. (I do think he was more bound by convention than his son - I do realize this contradicts what I said for W)

I have a feeling that if we could read Kerry's mind - he regrets the 2002 vote but not the 1990 one. In neither case were the votes made carelessly or in an unprincipled way.

Bill Clinton is now going to lecture Democrats not to "fear tough issues"? Pulleaze.

Bill Clinton betrayed the poor with his heartless "welfare reform" in order to appease conservative lawmakers and voters.

Bill Clinton about faced on the entire issue of permitting gays and lesbians to serve proudly and openly in the armed forces because it was too "tough" of an issue.

Bill Clinton stood by and allowed Joycelyn Elders, his very own courageous Surgeon General to be vilified falsely by the radical right wing and then asked for her resignation. Of course, Newt Gingrich was very pleased at the time and commented that what Clinton had done was "good for the country and good for the President."

Bill Clinton, however, never had a problem when it came to taking on the "tough issue" of defending his outrageous behavior with an intern which allowed the Republicans to take over the U.S. Senate and have a close-enough election to steal in 2000 because of the Lewinsky affair.

If Bill Clinton had resigned because of his rotten behavior and thereby allowed Vice President Al Gore to become the President, George Bush could have never, ever even have come close enough to defeat or pretend to defeat a sitting President Gore in 2000.

The toughest issue test, of course, was the War in Iraq, which both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported. They failed that test.

Tough issues? Lecturing of Democrats by Bill Clinton? Someone take his microphone away.

If theyre gonna accuse us of being baby killers and gay marriage pushers then we BETTER answer these issues