Is Bush worse than Clinton?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 26 Feb 2006 | Joseph Farah

[BufordP]

Anyone see the CSPAN Afterwords program last night? Jim Pinkerton interviewed Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett is a solid conservative economist who defended President Bush for a long time. But by 2003 he had as much as he could take.

BTW, I don't think Bush is worse than Clinton.

[BufordP]

Ping!

[BufordP]

I saw your post back in October. Thought you'd be interested in this article.

[johnny7]

Farrah ought to team up with Savage... maybe between the two of them they could come up with a memory.

[Lazamataz]

He's not worse than Clinton, because he is not immoral, or grasping, or vain, or filled with charlatanry.

However, he's not even 2% of the Ronald Reagan that I was hoping for.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Bush understands the importance of tax cuts.

[BufordP]

What conservative worth his or her salt doesn't understand the importance of tax cuts? There's a whole lot of other stuff Bush does NOT understand...Or refuses to follow. If you're not familiar with Bruce Bartlett you should become more acquainted with his material. He's a major Townhall.com contributor.

[Obadiah]

Holy moly, leave it to "conservatives" to start shooting their own! After all the caterwauling about Bill Clinton, we get this dunderhead starting to criticize President Bush.

How do you think Bill Clinton would have done financially after 9/11 and Katrina?

Yeah, Bill Clinton built a surplus - on the back of the military through deep, deep cuts! Remember the peace dividend that everyone wanted to spend?

You people (author) are INSANE to start sniping at this president! Oh, how quickly we forget the depths of despair many were in in the middle of Clinton's vacation from history.

[BufordP]

One more highly selective ping.

[freedomson]

"It's too early to know if Clinton was the worst president this country has had, but, he's certainly the worst man to have ever been president."

- George Will

[Publius6961]

He concludes that at least on matters of spending and budget, Bill Clinton was better than our current president.

OK. Agreed.

On everything else, however, it's no contest.
So?
He's not the perfect president. There is no such animal.
If the choices were the same tomorrow I would vote for Bush again tomorrow.

Bottom line.

[Publius6961]

Yeah, Bill Clinton built a surplus - on the back of the military through deep, deep cuts! Remember the peace dividend that everyone wanted to spend?

The biggest tax increase in history.
The first retroactive income tax in history.
Taxing Social security checks for the fist time in history...

Sure, Clinton had a historic presidency.

[AGreatPer]

Thank you for the ping.

"The borders were, if anything, less secure under Clinton, and he sold out control of U.S. ports to the Chinese government for campaign cash."

Clinton also sold our missile technology to the Chinese. His actions could come back to bite us in the a$$ for decades.

[BufordP]

I admit it's an unnecessarily incendiary title. But Bartlett's book is a very important analysis on what I consider to be ANOTHER missed opportunity to control federal spending. He even went out of his way to make it worse with the prescription drug benefit. An liability that will dwarf Social Security.

Forget the article's title. This isn't about a choice between Clinton and Bush. Or imagining an Algore administration in its place. It's about, in spite of Republican control of the House and Senate; creating new entitlements, never vetoing pork, signing unconstitutional legislation like CFR, and so on and so on.

Nothing conservative about it.

[AgThorn]

Clinton was forced to deal with a Republican Congress for much of his tenure in office.

Well, actually, Bush has NOT had a 'Democratic Congress' to deal with yet, which probably explains his 'no veto's yet' policy more than anything else. But can't argue on this, as this may be his worse legacy, i.e. lack of fiscal restraint.

[BufordP]

I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for a Republican that can at the very least spend less than Clinton - not more.

If Bush could run again in 2008 against say, a field that included George Allen, Mitt Romney, Bill Owen, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, You'd still put Bush on top? Not me.

[Coop]

Corrupt, pathologically lying, disbarred, impeached rapist.

I report, you decide.

[BufordP]

I'm not even sure Bush would have exercised his veto pen against a Democratic congress. Remember, he came into Washington wanting to "set a new tone" and touting his "compassionate" conservatism.

[BufordP]

I think Joe Farrah and Bruce Bartlett (me too, of course) would agree with you.

[Coop]

Oh I forgot, I'm not supposed to be talking to you.