Bill Clinton and Barack "Wrold" Obama: What is "Success" and What Is "Failure"

What made Bill Clinton a "successful" President? Yes, I have said in the past, and say it again. Bill Clinton was a successful President, in terms of how the country did during his term of office. That is because Bill Clinton was the best President for conservatives since Ronald Reagan, and a better "protector" of the Reagan leagacy than either George Bush 41 or George Bush 43. This is true exactly because Bill Clinton was unsuccessful in getting his domestic policies enacted. The period from 1980 to 2000, iniated by the great Ronald Reagan, was argurably the most successful 20 year period ever enjoyed by any political entity on this Earth--certainly since Rome. Yet, Republicans fought Clinton tooth and nail during his eight years. They prevented Clinton's proposed health care disaster. The Newt Gingrich revolution occurred, and Republican conservatives controlled the House in 1994 (only two years after Clinton was elected in 1992). The conservative House then limited Clinton, on domestic issues, to conservative issues like free trade (NAFTA) and welfare reform. The Republican House imposed fiscal discipline on Clinton, and we did not even get a program like the disastrous Bush Medicare Drug Benefit Program, or even No Child Left Behind. The eight years of Clinton, if we had only realized it at the time (and some of us partly did) were golden years for conservatives. They were basically golden years for the country, as well, totally because Clinton was unsuccessful in legislating a leftist agenda. Make no mistake. Bill Clinto was no conservative, although he was surely not as left as Obama (or the entrie present Democratic Party). But Bill Clinton accomplished what Republicans failed to force on President Bush: He was not successful in explanding the Federal Government (significantly). With President Bush, Republicans in Congress no longer imposed the discipline that they imposed on Bill Clinton. This led to the ultimate downfall of the Republican Party (not Iraq). Yes, all of this mainstream media blalther about everyone wanting Obama "to succeed" is simply more of that sanctimonious hypocrisy in which the modern media excels. Will Obama not "succeed" better, as Bill Clinton did, if his leftist ideas (and that of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) are siccessfully opposed. What the media ignores, as they always now ignroe history, is that a President's success for the country can depend upon his lack of success in getting his programs enacted. That is exactly what happened with Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, it will not happen with Barack Obama. Not only are the media, and The Republican establishment, pretty much equating opposition to Obama programs with trason, but the Democrats control Congress. This is a recipe for disaster. And the disaster will not be because people do not want Obama "to succeed". It will be because there is no check on the leftist agenda--as there really has not been on the mainly leftist domestic agenda of President Bush. This is the paradox. If Obama "succeeds" in getting everything he wants, the country will fail. If somehow conservatives mobilized, against all odds, to stop the lurch of the country disastrously to the left, then the country will likely have a better chance "to succeed" (with credit going to Obama, as Clinton gets a lot of credit for the prosperity of the Clinton years). Too bad this is so unlikely. The problem is that Obama is very likely "to succeed" in imposing leftist policies on the country which will be very difficult to reverse. The old curse goes: "Watch what you wish for; you may get it." The mainstream media may have cause to remember that curse.