Posted on 02/27/2006 5:39:30 AM PST by BufordP
It's hard to imagine.
It's difficult to come to grips with the possibility.
It's not even an idea with which I like to wrestle.
But the time has come to consider the notion.
In his new book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, a member of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, takes a hard and sobering look at the presidency of George W. Bush.
He concludes that at least on matters of spending and budget, Bill Clinton was better than our current president.
This is not a conclusion likely to be embraced by many of Bartlett's conservative colleagues. As a "non-conservative," let me take a dispassionate view of the charge. Frankly, though I agree with some of the observations and conclusions of "Impostor," I don't like the way the hypothesis is framed. To propose that Clinton is or was, in any way, "better" than any other president is anathema to me.
Clinton is and was a crook – a charlatan, a rogue, a traitor to his country, virtually without redeeming qualities.
As a victim of his reign of terror in the White House, I cannot look at his administration with any degree of nostalgia.
While Bush sold us out on border security and port security, Clinton did the same. 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. While Bush has done too little, too late to make our nation secure after Sept. 11, Clinton did everything in his power to make our country vulnerable to the inevitable attacks of that day. While Bush seems to have no understanding of the way a constitutionally limited federal government is supposed to operate with restraint, Clinton attempted to rewrite the Constitution with a series of presidential decision directives and executive orders that came close to setting himself up as a dictator of sorts. But, there is one area in which Bush is clearly worse than Clinton. And that is, as Bartlett affirms, the matter of fiscal policy. It is undeniable that Bush has, to date, refused to veto a single piece of legislation passed by Congress. He has spent far more than the previous administration and it is not, as his defenders would suggest, just because of national security concerns. When you take the new Homeland Security behemoth out of the budget, when you take increased defense spending out of the budget, Bush still outspends Clinton significantly. This is an ominous and indefensible fact.
Bush is bankrupting the country. We cannot forever sustain the reckless deficit spending he has approved. It is not only disastrous from a practical point of view, it is morally wrong. Our children and grandchildren will pay a price for it if this generation does not. So, my only argument with Bruce Bartlett on this point is one of semantics. I would not say that Clinton is in any way "better" than George W. Bush or any other president. Clinton was, in every way, a terrible failure, a disgrace to our nation, a human plague that infected the White House for eight years. But, there is no question, when you look at the cold, hard facts of the budgets approved by the two presidents, that Bush is "worse" than Clinton in that one area.
There are many reasons for this. We can find many rationalizations for it. We can make excuses for Bush if we like. For instance, Clinton was forced to deal with a Republican Congress for much of his tenure in office. Republicans showed some political restraint during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, they have displayed no fiscal restraint whatsoever during the Bush years. Republicans in Congress may have had their arms twisted by the White House during the Bush years. They may have believed they were doing their president a favor by giving him what he wanted. However, the result is that after all is said and done, the Bush administration will have a more disgraceful fiscal record than the previous administration. There's just no other conclusion to draw. Read it and weep.
They are different in many ways...but I still don't care for either one.
Honestly, who cares? That scenario is not remotely related to reality, so what difference does it make.
The reality is that GWB is in his last term so you will never be faced with having to choose between him and anyone else.
You may enjoy this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586143/posts
What she said was correct. What she is thinking is wrong. Disenchanted conservatives will not vote for Demoncrats. But it could hurt us in the fall elections when conservatives stay home in droves.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
A Royal Screwing is a Royal Screwing, regardless of party.
As long as Farrah continues posting UFO rumors on his site, I ignore everything else he has to say.
The truth is out there, you are just not buying it.
Forget about Farrah. Bruce Bartlett is a well known and HIGHLY respected conservative economist. It's about what HE has to say.
I know, I know. Nothing to see here. New $18 trillion prescription drug entitlement program, signing unconstitutional legislation (CFR), never vetoing pork. Move along. Increased federal spending more than Clintoon. Oh well, he's the best we got. ARRRGGGHHH!
Thanks for the ping.
Reading this is such a "downer" I feel we have missed so many golden opportunities in the name of "better than"...you name the person.
There was NO true conservative that we could vote for! Life has it's little realities we have to accept!
Who could we back next time? I gave in to electability last time. Forbes just can not win and who else do you suggest? McCain will not be conservative and is "batty"!
What do we really know about RICE? Allen? etc.
Lets take this thread to the POSITIVE side.
By the way, great thread and careful work on the opinions!
I do not ever agree with you completely, LOL , but this is well done!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.