Is Bush worse than Clinton?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 26 Feb 2006 | Joseph Farah

[Obadiah]

I agree, the biggest disappointment for me was Bush signing campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, I think that was payback to McCain. The prescription drug benefit? It was a bold political gambit that didn't work. The idea, if you recall, was to break the Democrat's hammerlock on the Medicare entitlement program. The drug plan was supposed to be cheaper and more streamlined, however, after the AARP got done with the lilly-livered types such as Olympia Snow, Chaffee, and the other usual suspects, we had an ugly Frankenstein bill.

In spite of all this, and against great odds, President Bush has had a remarkable presidency. I would argue that Bill Clinton's presidency set the tone for Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, $6,000 shower curtains, and the whole tech bubble that came crashing down - hard.

No, I certainly don't like everything George Bush has done, but I'll take him in a heartbeat, and that goes for almost any candidate you put up against him -- George Allen, Mitt Romney, Newt, etc.

[stuartcr]

They are different in many ways...but I still don't care for either one.

[alnick]

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.

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.

[billybudd]

Bush understands the importance of tax cuts.

No, he doesn't. Bush views tax cuts as simply another government spending stimulus, same Keynesian crap the liberals advocate. Which explains why the spending increases he's allowed far exceed the tax cuts. Yay, free money!

[Just A Nobody]

You may enjoy this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586143/posts

[BufordP]

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.

[NYCynic]

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

A Royal Screwing is a Royal Screwing, regardless of party.

[Albion Wilde]

As long as Farrah continues posting UFO rumors on his site, I ignore everything else he has to say.

[bmwcyle]

The truth is out there, you are just not buying it.

[BufordP]

Forget about Farrah. Bruce Bartlett is a well known and HIGHLY respected conservative economist. It's about what HE has to say.

[BufordP]

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!

[3D-JOY]

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.

[3D-JOY]

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!