I stand second to no one in my hatred of Klinton. But, actually, Bush I losing to Clinton manifestly WAS better for the country, and conservatives, than another RINO term. Compare them. No way would we have had a Republican Congress had Bush I won. We would have had even more crap like the ADA. And probably more tax increases. Judges? Well, Bush I DID appoint Thomas, but sort of left him hanging to win approval by a thread. I think Souter or Kennedy probably are as bad as, say Ginzburg. Their only saving grace is that they aren't as smart as the Klinton appointees. So, yes, an unrepentant liberal who tries to screw the country and is seen for what he is is better than a RINO like Bush I.
Reagan was correct: conservatives don't win elections by blurring distinctions, but by emphasizing them. Bush I got an object lesson, but I doubt he learned from it. Bush II seems to be going the same way.
Clinton had two terms. The majority of the damage done was in the second.
No matter how much it did to galvanize the Republican party, just what did that galvanization do? What good did it do for the country?
The only thing that I can think of is that it helped Bush to win and be in the right place at the right time.
He deserves a second term. We owe him that, no matter how many feathers he may have ruffled.
He is a do-person and do people make others angry often.
People who do nothing don't have that problem. That is why you made that statement. It is because Clinton did nothing!
Bump --- if we'd have seen that during the past 3 years, this thread wouldn't exist. There would be no question about Bush's second term.