Clinton, other then selling defence secrets to China, wasn't so bad. He pretty much didn't do anything except have a good time in the oval office. I much prefer a do nothing president to a advance the liberal agenda president. And Bush is an advance the liberal agenda president, he reminds me of LBJ (spit). And that's not good. So it matter very little if a D or an R sits in the white house since both are globalist, socialist, new world order, big spending liberals.
I hate to say it but in hide sight the Clinton years are starting to look better than Bush years.
Clinton, other then selling defence secrets to China, wasn't so bad. He pretty much didn't do anything except have a good time in the oval office. I much prefer a do nothing president to a advance the liberal agenda president. And Bush is an advance the liberal agenda president, he reminds me of LBJ (spit). I still think the Clinton years were worse, from a moral standpoint. However, violating one's oath of office and signing bills that violate rights of the First and Tenth Amendments isn't exactly moral, either.
From a fiscal standpoint in terms of spending, the Bush years have been worse- as you mentioned, LBJ-like.