 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Responses:
Subject: Answer to the questions
From: Omar
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:43 PM
I think that the most important qualities in a president are his leadership abilities. It does not matter what type of person he is behind closed doors, what matters is if he can get the job done and take this country to its fullest potential!
Subject: Best Presidential Website
From: Frank Hillier
Date: 04 Apr 2000 6:55 PM
I am an avid fan of the Presidents and have discovered what I believe to be the best website on any of the chief executives. It is devoted to Ulysses S. Grant and the URL is:http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/This Grant site is an example of scholarship and fine design perfectly blended.
Subject: Re: If Men were Angels
From: Charles
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:21 PM
Your quotation of Madison is, of course, turning it on it's head. Madison meant that government curbs non-angelic behavior of the people, not that presidents aren't angels."Does electing a good person..." is a loaded (and pretty silly) question. The qualities a person posesseses, plus the situations that appear, plus the people available to help or hinder are what make a "good" or "bad" president. (Besides, a "good" vs. "bad" president is a matter of interpretation; for instance note the revision in the "goodness" of Eisenhower's presidency of late.)
Subject: Re: "If men were angels..."
From: Billy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:59 AM
The American people don't expect a president to be "angel".But they rightly expect him to set an example for the wholenation and they want to be proud of him.
Subject: If men were angels
From: Rebecca
Date: 04 Apr 2000 3:44 PM
I believe most people look at the presidency as being a job, regardless of the morals or character of the person. Extramarital affairs, drinking problems, etc. do not determine a person's qualifications in "the real world."
Subject: If Men Were Angels
From: Judy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:24 PM
The ability to lead means the ability to convince others that you are a person worth following. For me, this means you are a person I respect, admire, and believe to be sincere. No one person can solve the world's problems but having a decent human being as a leader helps us all muddle through.
Subject: Presidents as 'angels.'
From: Edward T. Graney
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:49 PM
I always get a chuckle out of quotes from former presidents, such as Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be nescessary." He, like most other presidents - as we have had very few great men in that office - mearly came up with quotes they hoped would put their views down in the history books. Then along comes a man like Clinton. Ha! Now there's a laugh. Wonder what quote of his the world will remember. Probably, "I did not have sex with that woman." Which made him as much of a 'bitch' as his co-conspirator in sexual alliance. Again, I laugh when someone says, "He's a great president." They have all been politicians first. And who nowadays trusts any politicians? We, as a nation (under God) better wake up. Angels? Most of our presidents have looked more like devils than Celestial Beings.
Subject: Ronald Reagan
From: Pamela
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:32 PM
On episode 5 "The American Way" Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal were discussed. According to this program Reagan went on TV and openly admitted what happened. This is a very convoluted (to say the least) description of what happened. Reagan never admitted to his role in this affair and neither has Bush. Reagan had some positive effects on this country, but let's not portray him as better than he was. In addition to lying about Iran-Contra, Reagan put this country into an abyss of debt in order to make the rich richer. Even the fact that Reagan had begun to suffer from Alzheimer's before he left office is being kept covered up.
Subject: Ulysses S. Grant slandered
From: Roger Nickols
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:47 PM
I was disappointed in tonight's program on General Grant. He was one of the greatest American heroes, yet this show was filled with inaccuracies and slander. It was disappointing, to say the least.
Subject: Ronald Reagan
From: Jon
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:59 AM
I disagree with your assertion that Ronald Reagan ran up the debt "in order to make the rich richer". His tax cuts resulted in much greater tax collections to the U.S. Treasury, including a larger percentage of all taxes paid by "the rich". The huge deficits were a result of Congress spending even more money than the extra money that the tax cuts brought in.
Subject: Reagan
From: Troy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:42 AM
Evidently Pamela is a 13 year old media brain washed lib. I am sure her hero currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Look sweetheart, the economy you now enjoy is from Reagan. He never would have sold our country to the Chi-coms like slick Willy did. The only president to be impeached has a nice legecy ring to it doesnt it! Of course we have only heard part of the truth about the Arkansas rat. After the US is released in November, the floodgates will open.
Subject: Reagan
From: Wm
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:28 PM
The segment on Reagan talked about the debt that accumulated during his Presidency, as if this were unique. The national debt* grew from .99 trillion in 1981 to 2.12 trillion in 1986 a fact that is well publicized. But it was trend that was already underway before he came into office. In 1974 the national debt was .48 trillion and six years later the national debt was .91 trillion in 1980. From 1993 to 1997 the national debt has grown an additional 1.4 trillion. Why is growth of the national debt only a historical concern in the 1980's?*(Source: Economic Report of the President 1999- natiional debt is the total outstandind debt including obligations held by the federal trust funds)
Subject: Reagan
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:53 PM
The vast majority of Clinton's term in office hasbeen controlled by Republicans. This should demonstratethat regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicanswho control either or both ends of Pennsylvania avenue,the cost of government is unlikely to go down.It is not doing us any good for Republicans to pointfingers at Democrats while Democrats point fingers atRepublicans and nothing in the meantime is being doneto reduce the size of the public trough they're ALLfeeding at.And ANYONE, be they democrat or republican is equallycriticized (John McCain) for trying to do ANYTHING(even the most modest of measures) to fix it.Seems to me rather than deciding who's the bigger pig,we'd be better off trying to get legislation passedwhich puts them ALL on a diet.
Subject: More answer
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 5:21 AM
Yes it is unique to triple or so the national debt and in the end the economy starts to dip into recession again because the level of expenditure and debt growth cannot be sustained any further. Try telling the hungry and homeless that at least you have a new spanky F16.
Subject: morals count
From: Ryan White
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:56 PM
Since our founding fathers, this country has had a bible-based foundation of our goverment. There had been some christian presidents in the White House,(Lincoln,Washington,Carter,Madison to name a few.)Morals do count if you are going to run for president. The country/world are looking at you and you should have morals that say that you are the right person for the job.If you have a stained past(i.e.I smoked but I didn't inhale)Then you need to repent to the American public and say you are sorry for what you did. As for what goes on behind closed doors that is not the public's place or role to know. That is the President's personal life and we ,as a puplic should respect that.
Subject: IF Men were Angles
From: Wayne
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:38 PM
Ryan, I can't agree with your opinion that what goes on behind the Oval Office doors is not our business. Obviously, the current President has demeaned the office, and a Public official are accountable for their actions including Presidents. As Nixon discovered, even he was not above the law. What if the current President were taking bribes, or members of his cabinet (President Grant's cabinet during reconstruction were notorious scoundrels, as were Lincoln’s during the war), wouldn’t that be of interest to you especially during an election year? Integrity issues such as your note mentioned about “…not inhaling” is a matter whcih I value in our elected officials.
Subject: If Men Were Angels
From: Jeff
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:46 AM
As a believer in Original Sin, I know everyone is flawed. In fact, in Christian philosophy, governments are a necessary evil as a result of sin, and governments are instituted by God, and they do not to guarantee rights, which can only come from God, but limit them. Governments and laws necessary limit rights for the safety of citizens, because paradoxically, where there are no laws there are not rights. The men and women who enter government service are flawed, and no must make some compensation for their simply being human. What seems to separate a great leader is how he is able to rise above his flaws to nobility, not how he can point to others and say they're no better than he is, like a kindergardener in trouble in a schoolyard. As to whether a "good" person can be a better leader, probably not. Certainly the kings and tsars who were good at heart were the ones who were ineffective and/or overthrown. "Good" people, however, are generally idealists unwilling to compromise in their visions; and a president especially must be willing to compromise, or he will find little done in his administration.
Subject: "If men were angels"
From: Ryan DeCesaro
Date: 04 Apr 2000 6:49 PM
The first characteristic and most important for a president is integrity. A strong sense of what is right and wrong, a basic honesty that he or she is there representing the American people's ideals, beliefs, morals, etc. first; and the political party that they belong to last.
Subject: Modern Hypocrisies
From: Winky
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:21 PM
No one expects presidents to be "angels" (a theological impossibility). However, although contemporaries may find acceptable behavior in their leaders that would've been unacceptable 100 or even 50 years ago, at the same time they lose respect for presidents who owned slaves, which was a perfectly legal behavior at the time. All eras have measured their leaders by different moral yardsticks. A leader today might be out of office sooner by showing some behavior that might be construed as "intolerant" than by actually breaking a law. No one is perfect, naturally (I found thoughtful a previous commentator's take on Original Sin and the necessity of government) but when we defend our presidents for ethical or legal violations and criticize others for lapses that we don't like based on our own prejudices, we pitch into a ditch of hypocrisy.
Subject: Remember Salem?
From: Heidi
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:09 PM
What need a president who can tell the truth and own up to his mistakes. How can we ask anyone in the public eye to be that person when any wrong doing, past or present, is misconstrued by the media and/or political rivals and blasted into every home in America? In order for us to have a President with integrity and morals we must be willing to let him make some mistakes, and apologize for them. I don't care if a man smoked pot in college, but I do care if he lies and then concocts more lies to cover it up. Our politicians need to be able to tell the truth without having to consult an army of lawyers and advisors first for fear of having their careers destroyed. If the offense is really that heinous, he will be voted out of office for the right reasons then. The world needs to be able to trust our President, but as long as we continue these media witch hunts we will only attract men who are willing to lie to cover up their not-so-big-mistakes. And those men end up making much bigger mistakes by the time they are through.
Subject: About the Whole Series
From: Heather
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:49 PM
I just want to say that I was given this series to watch as a project for my 8th grade American History class. It's prettycool. I'm not into that kninda stuff!
Subject: Ain't No Angels Here
From: Peter B. Thomas
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:41 PM
I do hope your series assigns and the websites show which popular presidents were highly flawed and which successfull presidents were highly flawed. One might have thought unpopular and/or unsuccessfull presidents were mostlikely to be "highly flawed".
Subject: President Clinton
From: Louis S, Carmona
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:21 AM
I am 66 years old and I served in the Military for 31 years. I can't say enough how much I dislike Mr. Clinton.He as dishonered the office of the Presidency much more that any other leader. He took it upon himself to have sex wi a perosn outside of his mariage and then he lied about it! He has engaged our young soldiers to countries that we do not have a nationeal interest. He is totally preocupiedd with his LEGACY. Is he stupid? Doesn't he know that he dishonered his office? I wish I could confront him face to face. He is a disgrace to our country! We have young troops on food STAMPS. Doesn't he realize the harm he has placed these young men in. (and women) I have 4 grandchildren. Until the day I go to my reward I will teach them what a scoundrel he was. He will never be compared to Reagan. Roosevelt. Washington etc. I can not figure out how the American public has suppoted him but i guess I need another 66 years to figure this out, Thank you for this opportunity to ventalate. Respectfully< Louis S>Carmona. Colonel, USA RET (and how they like to ask; A Porto Rican with a great deal of love for his country but not his LEADER. (forgive my typine)
Subject: Clinton slant
From: Gil Hodges
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:07 PM
The Clinton episode of "The American President" is the most slanted pile of crap I've ever seen. Why not just plainly say what you really mean PBS, "Look what those evil Republicans did to our precious President Clinton." You totally puckered up on this episode.
Subject: Bill Clinton
From: Jim Fox
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:08 PM
Bill Clinton's private infidelities are not the issue. His public lies and deception have disgraced the office and forever lowered the standard. One of the saddest aspects of his term is the seeming acceptance (news media polls) of the American public that his actions do not have consequences. He will forever be remebered as the man who lowered the bar for Presidential character. We deserve better!
Subject: A Lying Socialist is no bargain either!
From: Grubaugh
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:24 PM
I don't think anyone expects angels, but Clinton set a new low. I hope the country understands what character means and why it is important after 8 years of this sorry excuse.
Subject: President Clinton
From: Sarah
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:27 PM
I thought the part on President Clinton was right on the money! For once we got to listen to someone speak about and to the President with a little understanding, and a great deal of thought. President Clinton has been a very careing President, and has done a wonderful job running the country. Yes, the Republicans hate him with a passion, and the news media is right up there with them, but history, in the end, will be kind to this President.
Subject: President Clinton
From: Seeker of Wisdom
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:24 AM
In an other wise well done series (I saw serveral episodes) on the Presidents, the part on Clinton was blatantly off the mark and biased to the point of "pure whitewash". It's possible that it was because the man is still in office and out of respect for the office accuracy was shrugged off - I don't think that was the case. Clinton has been the worst and most corrupt president in a half century without a doubt. The "vast right wing conspirators" don't really hate the guy and hate seems to be more abundant on the left anyway. Pity is a more accurate description for the feeling that one has for the man and sadness for what he has and has not done. We've all heard of the almost countless number of Bill Clinton's freinds and associates that have been sent to prison indicted, pleaded the 5th ammendment, or fled the country. I'm sorry but to anyone not brain dead, that don't smell right. The morale of the military is at an all time low, Clinton spent most of our land launchable cruise missles in order to "wag the dog", bombed an aspirin factory in Africa, symbolically stabbed Taiwan in the back, and shut down the government only to sign basically the same budget that he vetoed. Other stuff of interest was: Whitewater, purjery, perversion, file-gate, travel-gate, handling of the Vince Foster killing, Lippo-gate, China-gate, bimbo-gate x 5, attack on freedom and the 2nd ammendment, extortion on the gun industry, and his veto of the ban on partial-birth abortions. I'm sure I left some off but this post is too long allready.
Subject: Final episode of Presidents series
From: Bonnie Doggett
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:26 AM
I comment as a retired teacher of American Studies. "The American President" series was, in the main, well done and its thematic organization particularly interesting. While none of the nation's presidents seemed to suffer greatly in your treatment of their biographies and administrations, neither were any unduly revered...UNTIL you got to the final episode this evening. How could a man of the calibre of Madison (with his monumental contribution to the entire notion of the checks and balances of a three tiered government structure) be deserving of far less time than you devoted to Bill Clinton, in a clearly soft soaped accounting of his presidency? Bill Clinton dishonored the office you have so eloquently reviewed these past few nights. In bringing dishonor upon himself, he brought it upon the Presidency itself and bred the kind of cynicism in the press and in the public that was epitomized by his rather flippant, self-serving distinction between character and mere reputation. His personal conduct was poor, granted, but that's not the principal problem with his character; his defiance of the rule of law, lying under oath, and calculated lies to friends,colleagues,and the whole of the American public.....that is a matter of character, not reputation, and while Bill Clinton seems to enjoy a good 'reputation' (if that is what polls tally of job approval), he will never be deemed a man of character. You didn't have to relive the sordid details of the scandal ridden Clinton years, but your omissions were many. What particularly struck me was your complete lack of censure. Perhaps I should say it another way: In many of the earlier episodes it seemed to me you were not hesitant to be judgmental or to point out weaknesses in the men you profiled. In Clinton's case, you deferred to him and effectively let him have the last word in your history. Was it because you were covering a sitting president that it cancelled out objectivity? That was a mistake. You would have been wiser then to have concluded the series in 1991 and left Bill Clinton to history, not to contemporary social commentary.
Subject: Clinton
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:35 AM
The subject here is "What makes a good president?"Admittedly Clinton is not the shining or even agood example, however, does anyone think he isan anomaly? Before him there was Nixon. Therehave been bad presidents both republican anddemocrat. Somewhere out there is a republican who has theability to make Clinton look like a Saint bycomparison.Ragging on Clinton (or Reagan for that matter)doesn't help get to the point of what we wouldprefer in a president. Chances are pretty good we won't agree, not oneverything.For all that he has done wrong, this is the longest period of prosperity in American history.If republicans would want credit for it were therea republican president in charge, can we do no less,Clinton's shortcomings notwithstanding, than givehim credit?Better yet. How do we establish a process by whichwe do a far better job of identifying and weeding outsuch social misfits as Bill Clinton and in the longrun, will that be the best possible answer for thecountry. Politics is uplifting and optimistic atit's best, but, on a daily basis it far more frequentlytends to be ugly and dirty, and amoral. Can werealistically hope that the most effective presidentfor the country will be as squeaky clean as Pat Boone?Is that what we would've wanted against Hitler? Isthat what we would've wanted against Saddam Hussein?They have considerably fewer moral scruples than evenBill Clinton. It's pretty darned difficult to stay clean and abovethe fray when the competition is flinging industrialstrength loads of mud at you as appears to be happeningin so many campaigns these days. A squeaky clean candidate isn't likely to stay that way for long.Should it degenerate to a mud flinging contest. Iwould hope not. On the other hand, those who handlecampaigns these days know that that's what works.Then what?
Subject: Largely on the Mark
From: lhp
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:42 AM
I had the feeling while watching the mostly favorable segment on Bill Clinton that people on the right would probably be screaming "bias!" Nevertheless, I thought the segment was mostly fair, although it should have mentioned the various investigations of Clinton's cabinet memebers (including pointing out that those investigations seemed focused almost exclusively on the minority members of his cabinet). I believe the segment was a good preview of how future historians will look upon President Clinton. In the longrun, people will have a hard time understanding why Congressional Republicans were so obsessed with going after him. While Clinton's indescretions with Monica Lewinsky were incredibly stupid and reflect great personal weaknesses, they are trivial and almost laughable when compared to Ronald Reagan's intentionally trading arms for hostages, deliberately lying about it, then breaking the law to funnel the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras (these facts were covered in the Reagan segment). Compared to Reagan, Clinton's lying will appear inconsequential. So while Clinton is no angel, he is certainly not the monster that House Republicans see. And while Clinton must be given only average to marks for foreign policy, his domestic policies have been quite sound, and have contributed to the current economic boom. Historians will view Clinton with at least moderate favor, while his key opponents, particularly Ken Starr, will be viewed as McCarthy-like figures whose overzealous attacks have set a dangerous precedent.
Subject: CLINTON-THE LYING BASTARD, DRAFTDODGING SCUM, COMMUNIST HEADING TO CUBA WHEN HE'S DONE SCREWING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE WE, THE PEOPLE...
From: ernst martin nelson
Date: 04 Apr 2000 3:01 AM
CLINTON'S ATTITUDE TOWARD AMERICA REMAINS THE SAME AS WHEN HE WAS IN RUSSIA DURING HIS DRAFT DODGING DAYS. THE PBS PROGRAM WAS FROSTING ON A PIECE OF CRAP. PBS SEEMS TO THINK THAT I'M STUPID OR ..., PBS FAILED TO MENTION HIS LETTING CHINA HAVE WHAT THEY WANT... HERE'S SOMETHING FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-APRIL 11, 2000(MR. TRAFICANT ASKED AND WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR 1 MINUTE AND TO REVISE AND EXTEND HIS REMARKS.) MR. TRAFICANT. MR. SPEAKER, THIS CHINA-WHITEHOUSE BUSINESS BOTHERS ME. CHINA'S TRADE SURPLUS WITH UNCLE SAM WILL EXCEED $70 BILLION THIS YEAR AND IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CHINA IS BUYING MISSILES WITH AMERICAN CASH AND THEN AIMING THOSE MISSILES AT AMERICAN CITIES. BEAM ME UP. I RECOMMEND THAT ANY DEAL WITH CHINA, NUMBER ONE, REQUIRE A 5-YEAR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE CHINA CAN FIRE A MISSILE AT AMERICA; NUMBER TWO, THAT CHINA CANNOT SELL STOLEN U.S. TECHNOLOGY AT MISSLE SHOWS; AND NUMBER THREE, ALL CHINESE MISSILES SHALL HAVE TRIGGER LOCKS. NOW ON A SERIOUS NOTE, I YIELD BACK THE GREATEST THREAT EVER TO AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY: COMMUNIST CHINA. I ALSO WONDER WHAT CLINTON'S LAWYER GREG CRAIG IS DOING IN CUBA, I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EMBARGO, WHAT'S HE DOING WORKING FOR THE COMMUNIST BASTARD CASTRO, I MEAN EILIAN'S DAD, HOW CAN HE AFFORD IT, WHY DOES CARE ANYWAY, HE HASN'T SEEN HIS SON FOR THREE YEARS AND FOUR MONTHS. JANET RENO, THE JOKE THAT NEVER ENDS, ALL OF THE SUDDEN SHE THINKS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW, SENDING EILIAN BACK, IS LIKE SENDING A CHILD BACK TO HIS MOLESTER. SORRY I HAVE GOTTEN OFF THE SUBJECT, BUT THE STUPIDITY OF THIS SO-CALLED PRESIDENT AND HIS CHOSEN CABINET, JUST REEKS OF CORUPTION AND LACK OF COMMON SENSE AND BASIC MORALITY. FROM THE PROUD SON OF DECEASED VIETNAM HERO(MSGT LEROY AMBROSE NELSON-ADVISOR,'62-67), NOT SOMEONE WHO CRASHED THEIR PLANE THREE TIMES, AND GAVE UP INFO IN FOUR DAYS, WHEN HE SHOULD OF GONE HOME AND TRIED TO FIGHT YET ANOTHER DAY, IT MUST BEEN HIS CONSCIOUS, THERE I GO THINKING OUT LOUD AGAIN
Subject: Clinton and the Economy
From: Wm
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:34 PM
Clinton's legacy will probably include favorable coverage of the economy during his tenure. This is due to the media describing the econonmy in superlatives rather than quatitative terms. The Reagan era expansion lasted 31 quarters (fall 1982 to summer 1990)and the economy(real GDP) grew 37%.The decline over the next three quarters brought the growth down to 35%. The Clinton era expansion, that started under Bush, acheived real economic growth of 30% over 31 quarters (fall 1998) and 3% over the next three quarters bringing real growth to 34% (summer 1999)- or one percent less than the nadir of the recession of 1990-91("the worst economy in fifty Years"). The current low unemployment rate is due more to the work age population growing at half the rate compared to thirty years ago than the present rate of job creation. Clinton obviously deserves some credit for reappointing Ronald Reagan's Federal Reserve chairman (ironically on the 100th anniversary of Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan anti sound money "Cross of Gold " speech). And as well he should since Chairman Greenspan's sound money policies resulted in a Federal Funds rate of 3.02% and prime rate of 6% when Clinton came into office (1993) compared to 16.4% federal funds rate and 18.8% prime rate when Reagan came into office (1981). His true legacy is that he was lucky to come into office after the post-war inflationary aggregate demand management theories had been junked a decade before he came into office and he has had the good sense not to tamper with the new sound money post Keynesian consensus.
Subject: Sarah-You're the quintessential Democrat
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:02 PM
You say, "President Clinton has been a very careing (sic)President, and has done a wonderful job running the country". What does that mean?! You are simply parroting the words that Clinton's machine has been pushing for years. You don't bother to back up your broad generalities about Clinton with any facts. That is why you are a true Democrat. Facts are not something a Democrat wants to hear because it makes it difficult to keep spewing ridiculous ideas like Clinton has done a wonderful job running the country (what policies, ideas, actions has Clinton taken that have been so beneficial to this country?). The FACT that Clinton lied UNDER OATH to deprive Paula Jones of a fair trial, the FACT that he coerced witnesses (he and Lewinsky shared the same lie that she swore in writing was true - that didn't happen by accident), the FACT that he perjured himself to the independent counsel are all something that yourself and ALL Democrats must pretend didn't happen or your arguments are completely without merit. I've just listed some facts that pertain to the Lewinsky affair, I could just as easily list facts regarding whitewater, travelgate, FBI files, etc. If your interested in responding with some FACTS to back up your position great - but please don't waste my time by responding with some rhetoric you overheard from James Carville or the like.
Subject: With a name like Carville you must be an idiot!
From: Troy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:10 PM
Dear Clinton scum lover. Knowlege is power, but ignorance is bliss.
Subject: Perspective
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 5:13 AM
oops. You are judging him just like most of the media, or people who overrate what Reagan and Bush and Greenspan has done to the economy. There is what is called fiscal discipline, which in my opinion is more significant than what the Feds can do to the economy. Have you heard of the term pump priming the economy during the start of Clinton's term and that each percent decrease in long term interest is equivalent to 60B extra money to the economy. Which do you think influences long term interest rate more, the Feds or fiscal discipline? Also, you did not mention that Reagan and Bush attained the growth in that span by quadruppling OUR debt and siphoning more interest today than the defense budget.
Subject: President Clinton
From: Carol
Date: 11 Nov 2000 12:16 PM
Amen Mr. Carmona! Thank you for saying it so well. I am a 27 year old woman. My grandfather fought in WWI and volunteered in the states in WWII. My husband's grandfathers fought in WWII and/or built airplanes, etc for WWII. I have 3 young sons and fear what they will be asked to do in 12-16 yrs. I am extremely disappointed that moral character is no longer a value/asset in our country. I understand that no man/woman is ever perfect. We all make mistakes, but we must all suffer the consequences of those mistakes - and take responsibility them. I don't want to have a president that takes the nation down with him and underminds all I try so hard to teach my children. I want to have a good economy, to have healthy children, to be safe, to have my children well educated, to be free to decide for myself how I feel about our God and other important personal issues. -BUT I am NOT willing to sacrifice personal morality and integrity for ANY of it. May we please have a president who is both a good leader and has good personal morals and integrity?
Subject: "If men were angels"
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:30 AM
Jimmy Carter was one of the most moral Presidents in mylifetime. He was one term, unpopular.Ronald Reagan was divorced.Nixon, most notably remembered for, other than Watergate,his China policy, resigned from office and kept a blacklist.John F. Kennedy, another popular president, had anaffair with Marilyn Monroe.Bill Clinton, a two term president, seems to have littleor no moral compass.Thomas Jefferson, often referred to as a Great President,owned slaves and fathered children by at least one of them.George Washington, owned slaves.Abraham Lincoln did not fight the Civil War over slavery,and only freed the slaves to help win the war.To date there have been no women, hispanic, african american, native american or other ethnic minoritypresidents. When David Dinkins ran, unseen he wasGREAT, the minute white people in focus groups foundout who he was, he LOST popularity.If I have to choose between competency and morality,I'll choose competency.If people insist on morality, elect the Pope, he maynot be the best President this country will ever have,but, no one will doubt his morality. It will also doaway with that whole bothersome, pesky, separation ofchurch and state thing which seems so offensive to Christians (not much mention of buddhists, hindus,scientologists, muslims, jews). Why should there be?The constitution ONLY says "Freedom of Religion". Obviouslywhat was meant was "Freedom of Christianity".
Subject: "If men were angels"
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:00 PM
Whoops. The african american candidate was Douglas Wildernot David Dinkins. Furthermore, Gen. Colin Powell was,and still is, considered a war hero and a great man, self identified Republican, until he considered running for President in '96. Then the mental stability of his wifebecame an issue.John McCain is a former prisoner of war, senator, bonafideconservative, until he ran for President, then he becamea questionable conservative, and enemy of the Republicanparty in his quest for campaign finance reform.Harry Truman has only become great in retrospect. He wasnot popular when he left office.FDR after having been elected to an unprecedented 3 termsis the reason we now have two terms for president (A factwhich republicans seriously considered undoing afterReagan's two terms). He also had an affair while inoffice and could arguably have been considered less popularthan his wife Eleanor.Morality alone will not ensure economic, social, political stability or an effective, productive presidency in the best interests of the country. Neither will absolute competency in the absence of a moral compass.For that matter, for all the discussion of moral relativity,if we are going to use morality as a guideline, what willthose moral standards be? And who will decide?To say that this is a Judeo-Christian country founded onbiblical values is a snub and an insult to everyone in this country who does not ascribe to those values. It isnot "their" problem. It is "our" problem.Freedom of Religion as well as Freedom of Speech meanseven those who do not think or believe as we do, or, ithas no significance and we can dispense with this discussionaltogether.Generally speaking, there's what we need and what we want,or think we need. And in this era of information overload,there are many people working overtime, all to often, tryingto convince us otherwise against ours or the nation's interests.As long as the discussion is so muddied and convoluted, Idoubt that a definitive answer will ever be reached, or for that matter, should be. As times, issues, and circumstances change, we should revisit this concern andbe prepared to change our minds.
Subject: "If men were angels . . ."
From: David
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:28 AM
Your observation that neither pure morality nor absolute competence are sufficient is very much on point. Presidents who had both outstanding personal morals and great ability have been rare. Only Washington and Lincoln come to mind, and the point about Washington's slaves is well taken. T. Roosevelt might be another. On the other hand, Presidents who were both personal and official failures are not so easy to name, either -- Harding, certainly, poor man. Nixon's presidency ended disastrously because of flaws in his personal character (not to say his personal mental health), but there was no evidence of corruption in the old sense of profiting from his office, and he was faithful to his wife - and his presidency was considered successful for many reasons other than his China policy. There was just the small matter his paranoia bringing the country to its worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War . . . The question about what we mean by morality is also well posed. I recall that when the Nixon tapes came out some of my fellow Christians (ah, unmasked!) were more appalled by the President's "expletives deleted" than by the fact that he violated his oath of office (which is what the commandment against taking the name of the Lord in vain is really all about). . . I must (you expected this) take issue with you on the matter of whether the republic was founded on Judaeo-Christian values. Neither Jefferson, Adams, nor Franklin were orthodox Protestant Christians, and Jefferson's "indowed by their Creator" was not strictly Biblical. But it did grow out of a world view that was consciously indebted to Christianity and the Bible. The First Amendment, indeed, repudiated not only the establishment of a state church but Patrick Henry's idea that Christianity should be declared the religion of America. But it did not repudiate the Western religious heritage that stood behind all of Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment thought (in sharp contrast to the revolutionary secularism of the French Revolution). . . What difference this makes is that there is indeed a common moral heritage that we share as a people. It is acknowledged by all or nearly all of our Presidents. To violate it openly is still considered a grave flaw in a President. (although a bull market can cover a multitude of sins). . . Nevertheless Judaeo-Christian virtue is more than keeping one's trousers up. (not that it is less) I mentioned T Roosevelt as a man both competent and moral. But what would Jesus have done about the Philippines?
Subject: Judaeo-Christian Heritage
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:49 AM
Your points are well taken, however, before there werepilgrims, there were native americans, who were notcatholic, christian or of a "Judaeo-Christian Heritage".Are their beliefs inconsequential? Is it not possiblethat a non-Catholic, someone who doesn't believe in Godor a God for that matter can nonetheless be moral?The supposition is that morality stems from religion,religious beliefs, that is not the case. To the point,we can look at the lineage of presidents and come tosome very definitive conclusions about who we are willingto accept as president. Currently, it's a pretty shortlist: White, Male, Religious (i.e. believes in God), Married, Military Experience preferred, Political Experience preferred, 35+ years of age, moderateThis list excludes a wide range of otherwise qualifiedcandidates for office. So, when we ask, what is itwe want, by exclusion, we've limited ourselves to gettingpretty much what we've got. Would we really suffer forhaving a president who fell outside of these qualifications?I'm not so sure. But, we've also got to be willing totake the chance.
Subject: IF MEN WERE ANGELS
From: TRACY
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:23 PM
President Clinton's lack of integrity has been the biggest contribution to his own troubles and to the great disgrace he has brought to the office. The program did not highlight any great contribution Clinton has brought to the office but that he has a wonderful personality. Many Presidents have had poor personalities but have had great personal dignity and integrity and have therefore accomplished much in the office. Your program failed to point out that Clinton has been his own worse enemy. The program's slant that He is a victim of his political enemies is a gross distortion. The President's great dismay at the ruin of reputation is laughable as no President in modern history has used their spin machines as well as Clinton to personally destroy reputations. History will not be as kind to Bill Clinton as your program.
Subject: IT'STHE MEDIA STUPID
From: Bill
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:00 AM
The Office of the Presidency will survive the Clinton scandals. The real question is whether or not the mainstream media will ever regain any integrity given its coverage of the Clinton's. It's interesting that in 1999 after the Clinton impeachment trial, 60 Minutes airs a story in which a woman makes a half-way credible accusation that she was raped by Bill Clinton in a Little Rock hotel. Too bad they held the story until after the impeachment trial, too bad they held the story until after the 1996 election, the Paula Jones accusations, the 1992 election. Of course the media will now says that these were only unfounded rumors in 1992. Too bad the media did not report this story when James Carville was continually trashing Paula Jones reputation every other week in 1996 on NBC's Meet the Press hosted by Mario Cuomo's former staff members.This is the same main stream media that for years reported on the network news about a possible secret meeting in Spain between George Bush and the Iranian government shortly before the Reagan-Carter election in 1980. It was a colorful story that was unture. I also listening to NPR's Nina Tottenberg & Cokie Roberts (whose mother was a Democratic congresswoman at the time) reporting a colorful, but untrue story about Senator John Tower fondling a young air force enlisted woman in a limousine. Of course the story was reported during the week of his unsuccessful confirmation hearings to become Secretary of Defense.Has the media has become more careful about sexual stories or does the media have a double-standard for Republicans & Democrats. The same media crucified Gingrich because he set up a charitable foundation to pay his expenses to preach the Republican gospel about free enterprise to college students. The media was so busy going after Gingrich that it did not have time to dwell on a less important story before the 1996 election about Clinton collecting a large illegal campaign contribution in the White House from the daughter of the Head of the Chinese Secret Police. The media knows that the public is tried of all this partisian politics. The media frequently reminds the public about what the public thinks is important. The media through its promotion of McCain has continually told the public that the public wants campaign finance reform.If the corrupting campaign contributions are stopped, the public will be able to rely solely on concise clear analysis and reporting from the media.Examples of the unbiased reporting on the PBS series was the softball questions to Clinton by Hugh Sighey, the TIME White House reporter, Hugh Sigey. His questions which seemed more like excuses were revolting. In the exclusive interview, Clinton tells us that he had difficulty struggling through the past year. Clinton says that he could not have made it if he was only doing for himself. He was able to continue on the job for the sake of the public. How noble. It's also too bad PBS did not tell us on the program that the Harvard professor interpreting history has written parts of three Democratic platform. May be PBS assumed that all of its viewers knew that history professors are liberal.Do we really want to rely on these journalists to filter our opinions. We may occasionally elect a liberal, charisimatic president that has a minor sexual impulse flaw such as raping women in hotels or having affairs with East German spies. May be it's not the economy stupid. May be it's not the Clinton scandals stupid. May be it's not Campagin Finance reform, stupid. IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID.Because if you are stupid enough to believe that George Step. and Cokie Roberts are objective reporters for ABC, you're probably stupid enough to believe that David Gergen was not a high-level Clinton advisor, but was a conservative political analyst for the McNEIL-LEHRER Report. If you are stupid enough too believe that NBC's Brokaw, Couric & Pauley are not partisian Democrats, you are probably stupid enough too believe that Kevin Phillips was a conservative political analyst for the CBS News.
Subject: If Men Were Angels
From: William A.
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:08 AM
Bravos for the insight on how our President Clinton has failed us. Character does indeed matter. A person who will cheat on his wife and tell lies will sell our defense secrets to the Chinese and jeapordize the future of our children to feather his own nest. To paraphrase our President, It all depends on how you define the word "treason." PBS can salvage this fine documentary if it re-writes the Clinton episode once the threat of retailation is lifted.
Subject: Bias vs. history
From: Ed
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:58 PM
Too bad the editors could not have removed their biases.Throughout his term, Wm. Clinton retained the services of
James Carville, whose chief aim was to incite partisanship,
distort the truth about positions on issues, and whenever
possible, smear and defaim the reputation of any person
opposing White House obectives.To subsequently allow Mr. Clinton the high ground, to allow
him to frame himself as the victim of defamation, is to allow
the stablehand to whine about his scent after he tosses manure
into the windstorm.In this respect Bill Clinton reaped less than he sewed.
Moreover, in the Lewinsky matter, a Federal judge fined Bill
Clinton for lying in a federal court. This is
a far more serious matter than any
"personal acts" which the President may committ,
and deserved historical note.So too did the number of unprecidented privileges sought by
the administration and denied by the Federal Court.The real Clinton story is the tale of the excessive
communcator. Of a Presidency which more than any other,
tried to govern by manipulation of the press and the people.
Bill Clinton entered office with a minority of the vote,
and maintained office with an unprecidented spin machine.The series ended with the excellent comparison of Lincoln
with his private secretary, vs. the White House staff of
500 today.A deeper look at the impact of that staff would have made
for excellent history.
Subject: Well said Ed
From: Steve
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:57 AM
Well said Ed! I was outraged when I saw the piece on President Clinton. The word "resoundingly" was used twice to describe him being "resoundingly relected". Talk about trying to re-write history! He was elected by a minortity of the voters in BOTH elections. This piece was clearly an attempt to attribute great support from the American people to this President - something the facts do not support.
Subject: too bad
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 4:48 AM
too bad for you, it is the electoral college's vote that counts.
Subject: If men were angels
From: Ed
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:03 AM
The people's pardon, give me a break.
Subject: Expectations
From: Henry A. Depue
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:17 AM
No one expects the American President to have no flaws. In the past the media has kept from the public the private lives, and aides have sought to keep that information from becoming front page. To let the current president act as though he was a victum and to give him credit for the blessing he has received is not treating each equally. Histroy will not be as kind to Mr Clinton as you were, nor are historians as hard on some of the others as your series. For one who never served in the military Mr. Clinton sure is quick to put American youth in harms way. Could you do something that shows the acts and then leave it to the public to decide if they are accomplishments or not?
Subject: The Presidential Series
From: Michael D.D. Madden
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:32 AM
No wonder Congress wants to cut off your funds.Nixon: The series concentrates on his resignation.Reagan: A guy who falls asleep at cabinet meetings (hint: he didn't have many ideas and wasn't really responsible for the good things that did happen during his term). Where was the "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall, and an analysis of his key roll in the fall of Communism?Clinton: Little but rousing music, great interviews and flattery, while calling Congress divisive, and partisan. As if the Democrats weren't partisan for 40 years. You imply that he was overwhelmingly elected...fact is he got less than 50% in both elections, and probably won only because Ross Perot syphoned votes from the Rebublicans. You imply that he "admitted his affair with Jenifer Flowers (name not mentioned) and put the issue behind him in the 92 election". Fact: He denied it and never admitted it, unless you can call his "mistakes" comment an admission. This man wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it...but you put the best face on him.Shame on you for your intellectual dishonesty!Analysis: If the President was liberal, he's quietly made to look good; if conservative (in the 20th century) he's made to look not so good. Unfortunately, typical PBS fare...and I say this with sadness, becuase much your fare is excellent stuff.
Subject: The Series
From: Darren
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:03 AM
I enjoyed this series each night. I learned much about the obscure presidents we don't concentrate much on in schools. However, after seeing the Clinton episode last night, I can only imagine how slanted, and misguided the others must have been as well. I agree with most that is already been posted on this matter. I was most shocked however on how the historical commentator (His name escapes me) rightfully lambasted Nixon for his crimes within the walls of the White House. How the people see the interior of those walls as sacred ground, and how the President is essencially a priest guarding that treasure. Then come time for Clinton, there was no mention on how he tainted that sacred interior with his own disgusting behavior, and perhaps crimes as well. I was befuttled at the absence of criticism of this tremendously flawed individual. My only hope is that History will show Clinton in his proper light, but my hope is dim if one of our gratest historical resources (i.e. PBS) has failed to rise to that simple expectation.
Subject: PBS is shameful
From: Ted
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:07 AM
Michael,Your comments on the PBS series The American President were dead on. The biases of the creative forces behind this show came through so clearly it's shameful. That final profile on President Clinton was just one more chance to reiterate the spin that the Clinton White House has been pushing for two years. The thinking being that if this spin (lies mostly) are said often enough, for long enough it will be viewed as the truth and give Clinton the positive legacy he so covets.
Subject: Amen Mike and Ted
From: Troy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:42 PM
Well said! After your attach the media filter, the series has some interesting points. However, how can you trust what you see? I like the current PBS poll asking if the President's personal life matters. An obvious reference to Slick Willy. They still don't get that it wasn't about sex, the way the Arkansas rat handled the situation(lie, cover-up, demonize the accuser,obstruct justice,etc...) spoke volumes about the true Bill the non-duped people know.
Subject: The lack of integrity in our present president
From: Harry
Date: 04 Apr 2000 5:21 PM
The series presented an interesting perspective of the presidency until it came to Clinton. The justification of his weakness as a man through his own devisive attempt to explain character exemplifies a lack of integrity on the part of the commentator. How any commintator can let this man try to explain character and then separate behavior from character to justify his action is an ignoramus. This is typical of the Clinton strategy to create conflict that forces separation and then destroy a sense of morality. I assume he wrote this section for PBS.
Subject: Presidential series
From: Paul Baldwin
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:53 AM
Excellent comments concerning the very flattering piece on Clinton......I think Bill wagging his finger, lying that he did not have sexual relations with that woman will be a very big piece of his legacy....kind of goes with the Bush quote....read my lips. Most definitely should have been included.Yea it was partison.....hmmmm wonder what could have caused that, the segment in the series made it sound like a lunar cycle or something of the sort....
Subject: The American Persidents
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 4:18 AM
Whew, everybody hates Clinton. Was this series all about him; or, might we be better of changing the title of this series to The American President's Lives.
Subject: 2 comments
From: anonymous
Date: 08 Aug 2000 9:08 AM
1. I think that there is a serious difference between lying about having a private sexual affair, and lying about using government money and resources to sway an election.2. I agree that the president should have certain moral standards in his personal life. At the same time, if I have a choice between a candidate with a good moral life and politics that I completely disagree with, and a candidate with a shaky personal life and politics that I do agree with, I have to choose the latter. In other words, a president should be a good political president, before he is a good husband.
Subject: Clinton - the dirty, rotten, no good, two bit, poor excuse for a human being let alone a president, got no business being alive or in the oval office, hate him with a purple passion, can't focus on anything else or even have a rational discussion because we hate him, hate him, hate him, hate him subject
From: Mike
Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:45 AM
Would those of you who hate him, hate him, hate him,kindly post your comments here and leave the rest ofthe topic alone for those of us who are interested inrational and not knee-jerk discussion???
Subject: THE BIG JERK
From: JENNIFER LOPEZ
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:38 PM
I AGREE THAT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID I HOPE HE GETS ALL HE DISERVES I HOPE THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL HAVE MORE MORALS THEN HIM
Subject: PBS proves itself a tool of the left
From: Bill
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:49 AM
The American President was a comprehensive, highly informative look at the presidency that lost all credibility in its final episode with the profile of President Clinton. Clinton should never have been included in this series as his term is not complete and there does not exist the ability to view his presidency with the perspective that only the passing of time can bring. Instead, not only was a profile of President Clinton included, but it was a transparent attempt to establish Clinton's legacy as a great President who was the victim of viscious partisan attacks that Americans were ultimately able to see through. Much of the language used in this "profile" came straight from the White House spin doctors who have tried to lump the many accusations against President Clinton into one bucket: personal indescrections.The decision to include this profile, done in such a pandering manner, casts doubts on the veracity of the all the other profiles I had enjoyed watching over the past 5 days.I TRULY RESENT having MY tax dollars spent to fund such a clearly left leaning, partisan media outlet.
Subject: Far left bias
From: Ed
Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:17 AM
I agree 100%!(See History v. bias below)
After seeing the last episode, one lost all faith in thetruthfulness of the first 9 shows.
Too bad.
Subject: I disagree
From: Anonymous
Date: 07 Jul 2000 4:41 AM
I seem to get the impression that it is the other way around. Oh well, we are all biased in a way.
Subject: HISTORY
From: STACY GUZMAN
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:31 PM
THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE
Subject: Ulysses S. Grant
From: Gerald Holmes
Date: 05 May 2000 4:29 AM
I thought your segment on Ulysses S. Grant putrid. It was not real, showed no true facts on the man other than he was a General and President. One of the greatest men in American History was totally disparged by your program. Grant avoided an attempted assasination of him by John W. Booth when his wife convinced him to go home to see the children rather than attend Ford's Theatre. Your program tried to do what Booth failed to complete and your attempted assasination was as failed as your insignificant and infamous program. America's Presidents deserved better.
Subject: Peter Neustadt, the Cheerful Shill
From: Don Baker
Date: 05 May 2000 4:29 PM
What a shame. Peter Neustadt really had me going until the last episode on Bill Clinton. That one utterly destroyed the credibility of the previous nine. Mr. Neustadt blames the defeat of national health care on "politicization" without mentioning that Hillary Clinton's imperial secrecy and exclusiveness killed it. He blames the impeachment of Bill Clinton on politicization without once mentioning the knowledge of the House Republicans that a woman claimed with credibility that he had raped her while he was Governor of Arkansas. Mr. Neustadt does not allow that some very decent people just don't want someone they believe to be a lying, philandering rapist to be President of their country. His celebration of the "tolerance" of the American people might somewhat different if it had been his wife who had been assaulted. Or maybe not. He certainly seems to be a loyal Demoncrat.
Subject: presidents should not be idols
From: anonymous
Date: 08 Aug 2000 9:31 AM
I would just like to comment that looking through these messages, it strikes me how many people turn presidents into idols. If it isn't Clinton, it's Reagan or Roosevelt or Kennedy. The biggest problem with idolizing a president is that we then only see the "good", and we immediately cut off our ability to understand the complex. Reagan may have ended the Cold War, but he did a great deal to accelarate the arms race first. Roosevelt may have helped Americans through the Depression and WWII, but his economic policies during the Depression had very little real impact, and he had a long-term extra-marital affair with the assistance of his daughter. Kennedy may have gotten us out of the Cuban missile crisis, but he also did a great deal to aggravate the situation before he made it better. We need to avoid idolizing (and demonizing) presidents. Not because they simply aren't "angels", but because when we do so we can't truly understand them.
Subject: if men were angels
From: Richard
Date: 08 Aug 2000 1:52 PM
It seems to me, we Americans, perhaps the majority, view our politicians as we do religious "prophets". That is to say we view our politicians in a messianic way, in particular during presidential campaigns. Our guy will save us from all that is evil. When our guy proves to be as human as the rest of us, especially if we didn't vote for him, then throw the bum out. Democracy works best when all participate. How many of us have written letters to the editor of newspapers in regard to our democracy? How many of us research issues before we take a stand on them? How many of us communicate in any way with elected officals or those running for office? Don't we get what we deserve with government we have? The cost of living in a democracy is high wether we actively participate or not.
Subject: If men were angels
From: Paul
Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:25 PM
What's wrong with demanding that a Presidential candidate be honest, faithful to his wife and family, forthright, concerned more with what is best for the country rather than what will buy the most votes, and have a grasp of the history of the country?
Subject: If men were angels
From: Jonathan Broman
Date: 11 Nov 2000 11:54 AM
The Presidency is-for lack of a better word- a job. If you were to apply for a job and if you were asked if you had always been faithful to your wife, what would YOUR reaction be? Where does this idea that Presidents should be basically more moral than the rest of us come from? Carter was a good man, but I suspect History will remember him as a presidential failure. What exactly do we want? A saint and a shrewd, crafty, charismatic politician all wrapped up in one human being? Good Luck. --- JB
