Clinton’s Legacy

Dennis Henigan’s love letter to Elena Kagan got me thinking about just how much Bill Clinton well and truly fscked us all eight years of his tenure in the White House. Now, eight years after his presidency ended, we’re still dealing with fallout from Clinton’s anti-gun legacy, which Kagan is arguably part of. If we had elected a pro-gun Democrat in the 1992 election, Obama would likely have had no choice but to surround himself with a lot of Second Amendment supporting Democrats.

DC is one of those places, once you’ve been there a while it seems you never leave. Look at how long you’ve been hearing the names Rumsfeld and Cheney? How long have we been dealing with the Bush family in one incarnation or the other? Or hearing the name Kennedy? Jack Valenti was still in Washington D.C., and a presence on the Hill when he died in 2007, after serving in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. I’ve known the name Wayne LaPierre since I was in high school. Turnover happens a lot at the lower levels, but D.C. has a habit of keeping people for years.

The Courts are the same way. Take a look at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Of the justices sitting, one was appointed by Carter, four by Ronald Reagan, two by George H.W. Bush, three by Clinton and three by George W. Bush. That’s a full half the court nominated by Presidents who’ve been out of office for nearly twenty years.

When I speak of elections having consequences, these kinds of things are largely what I mean. There’s a certain inevitability to things if you bring a highly left-wing administration into Washington D.C.

3 thoughts on “Clinton’s Legacy”

  1. Congress is not going to reign itself in. They have the power to buy votes and gift themselves sweetheart deals. A constitutional convention, called by the states is needed. I recommend the following amendments;

    # Forbid the U.S. government from participating in health care other than for Veterans
    # A requirement that the budget be balanced starting with 2012
    # Term limits No person shall serve in Congress or as a federal judge for more than 12 years in their lifetime.
    # Congress shall not exempt itself from ANY law
    # The Senate shall approve or reject all appointees within 30 days

  2. I agree on the constitutional convention, but only if it’s clear we can control it rather than the left-wing establishment. Maybe the Tea Party could make that possible. But I’m not as reflexively frightened by the idea as some. The progressive movement used constitutional amendments very adeptly to promote their agenda. These days we seem to feel that’s not possible.

  3. Term limits cede control to the unelected bureaucrats and the unelected party bosses. Do you really want the tinpot dictators of BATFE to have more power by virtue of experience than Congress? (Replace with EPA, Interior, etc). We ALREADY have enough of a problem with agencies evading congressional oversight – let’s not compound the problem. Likewise the smokers of the smoke-filled rooms. Everyone in government garners power by longevity – but representatives have to face the voters; the bureaucrats and party bosses don’t.

    Term limits assume that a naive representative is automatically better than a veteran politician, with trivial exception. I thought the other side categorized by label and class without looking at the person.

    One of the worst things the honest members of the Republican class of ’94 did was term-limit themselves. They left the Republican party to the dinosaurs, without getting enough seniority to really be able to change things for the better.

Comments are closed.