[billybudd]

I think the standard by which we judge public officials should be whether their actions overall increase or decrease freedom. Saying that Gore would have been worse is meaningless - we have no idea what Gore would have done or been able to do. Remember, we had Clinton, but it wasn't a total disaster. Clinton tried pushing health care and tax increases, and it brings Republicans into congress instead. Clinton was also forced to deal with the Republicans in passing welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, etc. I'm not saying Clinton was good, but you shouldn't assume that a Democrat will automatically be able to implement a socialist agenda, any more than Bush is able to implement a conservative one. So far, I would say that Bush overall has not advanced freedom in this country, according to my own standards. Actually, instead of arguing about what Bush has and hasn't done, which we've all heard rehashed hundreds of times here on FR, I think we should argue about what standard we should use to judge the President. What do you think?

[afuturegovernor]

we have no idea what Gore would have done

I think that we know exactly what President Gore would have done.

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting points. I often wonder how much different the U.S. would have been if Bush Sr. had won in 1992 and Dole had won in 1996. I've often thought that on a national scale, things tend to move in a certain direction regardless of who is in the White House.

[Mo1]

Saying that Gore would have been worse is meaningless - we have no idea what Gore would have done or been able to do

HUH???? ... You have got to be kidding