I found this pretty interesting, though there is no documentation with it.

Taz

Subject: Thank you Mr President

As I was making my daily journey to the Post Office the other day, I patiently waited for a car to vacate a parking space near the door. As the rear of the vehicle came toward me, I noticed a bumper sticker which read, > >in big, bold letters, "THANK ME. I VOTED CLINTON-GORE." > > > >Of course, the bumper sticker was printed in response to an earlier > >sticker > >which adorned some automobiles some six years ago. Back then, as > >Presidents > >Bill and Hillary were attempting to nationalize health care and play > >havoc > >with the discipline and fiber of the military, "Don't Blame Me. I Voted > >For > >Bush" was the message on many bumpers. > > > >So, the "Thank Me.." message came in response. > > > >Pondering the message of the brave, stubborn soul in the car ahead of > >me, I > >considered all the things I could be thankful for as a result of the > >Clinton-Gore regime. I discovered the list was long and varied. So, it > >is to > >that fellow, I offer a hearty "Thank you!" > > > >Thank you for introducing us to Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica > >Lewinski, and about two dozen other names that we might not have met and > > > >known. > > > >Thank you for allowing a World War II hero and author of one of the most > > > >successful military campaigns (Desert Storm) in history to leave the > >presidency because, no matter how successful he was, we, in all our > >moral > >outrage, just wouldn't tolerate someone who would lie to the American > >people > >by promising "no new taxes" and then going back on his word. We > >certainly > >can't have a liar in the White House, now can we? > > > >Thank you for showing the men and women in America that sexual > >harassment in > >the workplace is okay as long as it involves powerful middle-age > >executives > >and the young women half their age under their power. It is, after all, > >a > >"private matter." > > > >Thank you for revealing that the agenda of the National Organization for > > > >Women only includes some women. Women like Anita Hill. Not women like > >Paula > >Jones, Monica Lewinski, et. al. > > > >Thank you for allowing us to come to the realization that "sexual > >relations" > >is not clearly defined. All these years, I thought that "oral sex" > >really > >had > >something to do with sex! (Is it Oral Sex when you talk about it...?) > > > >Thank you for giving us a president who discusses his choice of > >underwear > >with teenagers. We always wondered about such things. > > > >Thank you for installing a man who reminds us of those good old days of > >pot > >smoking (without inhaling, of course) and war protesting. > > > >Thank you for showing us that the ridiculous plot of the movie, "Wag the > > > >Dog," could really be plausible after all. > > > >Thank you for reintroducing the concept of "impeachment" to a new > >generation > >who missed that discussion the last time it was brought up. > > > >Thank you for curing me of my addiction to the evening news. > > > >Thank you for reminding us that the government that gave us the Internal > > > >Revenue Service and welfare, also lusts for control of the greatest > >health > >care system in the world. > > > >Thank you for reminding us that the FBI, who has a file on millions of > >Americans, can and will give those files to people powerful enough to > >demand > >them. > > > >Thank you for reminding us that, when all is said and done, character > >really > >does matter. > > > >Thank you for making Dan Quayle look like the Rhodes Scholar. > > > >Thank you for making Jimmy Carter look competent. > > > >Thank you for making Gerald Ford look graceful. > > > >Thank you for making Richard Nixon look honest. > > > >Thank you for making Lyndon Johnson look truthful. > > > >Thank you for making John Kennedy look moral. > > > >Thank you for making Al Gore look positively presidential. > > > >Thank you for reminding us of the importance of term limits. > > > >Why, if not for you and the cooperative television networks and > >newspapers, > >the current discussion would be focused on a whole slew of trivial > >matters > >such as: giving secrets to China in exchange for campaign contributions, > > > >global defense, the economy, nukes in North Korea, genocide in Africa & > >Kosovo, the containment of terrorism, and all those other boring topics. > > > >So, thank you, thank you, thank you! > > > >Since William Jefferson Clinton took office, here are some of the good > >things > >that have happened: > > > > 1) 72 House and Senate witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment. > > 2) 17 witnesses have fled the country to avoid testifying. > > 3) 19 foreign witnesses have refused to be interviewed by US > >investigative > >bodies. > > 4) 19 charges from Whitewater investigations, 4 convictions from > >Whitewater > > investigations, 8 imprisonment's from Whitewater investigations: 55 > >total > >charges in all Clinton scandals, 32 total convictions (so far) in all > >Clinton > >scandals, 14 total imprisonment's (so far) in all Clinton scandals. > > 5) 938 overnight stays at the White House for Clinton supporters. > > 6) $48 million - cost of Starr's 2 Year investigation. > > 7) $49 million - cost of Clinton's 10 day trip to China. > > > >Yes, it's been an interesting 7 years for "the most ethical > >administration > >in the history of the Republic." > > > >Thanks. >

-- Taz (Tassie123@aol.com), March 22, 2000

Answers

WOW!!! Busy little rascal, wasn't he? Can he get into any more mischief before November?

-- Eleanore Mameli (eleanore@mail.island.net), March 22, 2000.

Answer, YES!

He'll continue to run up OUR national debt while all the while claiming we're running a surplus! Ever wonder how that works? (Newsflash: it doesn't)

Now we need someone to tell us how the Republicans would change the above scenario.

-- PoliticsAnd (AccountingDont@Mix.com), March 23, 2000.

Re: totals

> 4) 19 charges from Whitewater investigations, 4 convictions from
>  Whitewater investigations, 8 imprisonment's from Whitewater
>  investigations: 55 total charges in all Clinton scandals,

Okay (in the sense that I'm all for charging and convicting those who've committed crimes), but let's keep some perspective here.

About 1990 a Wall Street Journal article noted, in a review of savings & loan scandals, that there had been over 500 felony indictments of Reagan appointees to that point.

Yes, over five hundred felony indictments of folks who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan to various posts during his administration.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.

PoliticsAnd (AccountingDont@Mix.com),

This is funny! :-D I didn't see your posting until after I posted -- really! We must've been composing at the same time.

> He'll continue to run up OUR national debt while all the while claiming we're running a surplus!

Oddly enough, Reagan promised all during his 1980 campaign that balancing the budget was important, but after he was in office he _tripled the national debt_.

Early in his administration, before the years when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he vetoed Democratically-introduced budget bills until the Dems gave in and voted for the Republican-preferred _higher_ spending than the Dems had proposed.

Then he'd go on TV and claim to the American public that it was Congress that was wrecking the budget -- after all, _they_ passed the budget bills, didn't they? Of course, he omitted pointing out that he'd vetoed the lower-deficit budgets, that there were enough Republicans in Congress to sustain his vetos until he got the higher-deficit budget that he wanted, and that he was signing the higher-deficit budget bills.

Being the great actor that he was (and I mean this sincerely in the context of his Presidency), he fooled lots of people who hadn't aced their American government lessons in civics class into believing him.

> Now we need someone to tell us how the Republicans would change the above scenario.

Hmmmm ... look at the record?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.

Republicans or Democrats. They are all bought and paid for and that includes most of Congress. Until we do away with the campane contribution system that now exists, its not going to change no matter what party is in there. Ever wonder why they call it a 'party'? The whole mess is a party and thee and me are footing the bill. Until we have a gov'twith some common sense, we are doomed. I just can no longer follow our gov'ts rational on things. For an instance: why did/do we send all this money to Russia? To keep them fed and to not bomb us. This was the rational after the break up in Russia. Kinda like giving the mugger money so he won't snatch old ladie's purses. I am getting really sick of feeding sick/corrupt gov'ts around the world. Help those who have been helping themselves and who may need a leg up due to natural disaster such as Mozembique (sp). And while I feel sorry for all those in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, as soon as we go in and set them up on their feet with the basics of food and shelter, they start right in again killing each other...both sides are guilty of this. I am becoming a real isolationist and feel that we need to cut our foreign aid and put our money into our own working poor, and our own infrastructure, and only those countries who agree with our principles. They don't have to agree with us....but we don't have to support them either! Neither do we have to take them in as imigrants and then supply them with translators and welfare and low interest loans.

Taz...who is fed up to her ears with our gov't.

-- Taz (Tassie123@aol.com), March 23, 2000.

Taz, I SO agree with you. By the way, did you read Gary North's Reality Check #47? About giving all these handouts to immigrants.

Clinton brags about our surplus, but just handed out a billion dollars to the Indian govt.- I heard it on the TV news. What was THAT for....a bribe not to nuke the Pakistanis? And how much is he going to give the Pakistanis, on the next leg of his trip? This man spends our money like there's no tomorrow!

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), March 23, 2000.

surely the point here is that corruption etc under any party's administration is wrong, rather than this clinton is corrupt but reagan was even worse ping pong

-- richard (ohsirrichard@aol.com), March 23, 2000.

Richard,

Yep.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.

Gary North! He's a fine one to talk about anybody or anything. He's a religious nut, a financial crook and he's never been right about anything, but he's a past master at bull shit, scams and other idiocy.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 23, 2000.