Was Clinton More Conservative Than Bush?

Fox News ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2002 | Veronique de Rugy

[Weirdad]

President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, the White House has veered to the left.

President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.

[Weirdad]

Self-Explanatory. There's nothing good about Clinton but the conservative changes we expect are not being pushed forcefully by this administration. We are going to have irreversible losses if we are not careful. Pray for President Bush and try to influence government officials to stick to limited government.

[ThreeYearLurker]

No

[j271]

Does it make sense for Bush to try to be a fake liberal?

If people want a liberal, won't they just vote for someone like Gore, who's the real thing?

[buffyt]

you are right!

[mrsmith]

I wish someone would compare pure total spending amounts, and total revenue amounts- in constant dollars.

Spending/GDP and revenues/GDP are obviously skewed by fast growing or slowing GDP.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This should be two questions:

Question 1: Is Bill Clinton still a worthless piece of human debris?
Answer 1: Yes

Question 2: Is Dubya an opportunistic errand-boy for the Eastern establishment?
Answer 2: Yes.

[FF578]

How many Conservative Judges would Gore Have appointed?

That was and is the Only issue with this President, and it is why we must win the Senate back in the fall.

Look at the way the demonrats are blocking the Judicial nominees. That is the real issue, because they institute their immoral social policy through the court system.

Frankly this President is not as conservative as I would like, but he was light years ahead of Clintoon and Gore.

I would much rather have someone like Alan Keyes, Howard Phillips or Pat Buchanan as President, but Bush is better than any democrat.

Did everyone already forget that Bush Reinstated the Mexico City Policy that Clintoon took away?

Did everyone forget all the Conservative Judicial Nominations that Bush has made?

I could care less about any politicians economic policy if they are not Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Homosexual, Pro-Family Value.

I would vote for a Candidate in a second if he were Anti-Sodomite, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-Porn, Anti-Fornication, Anti-Drug, Anti-Adultery ect... and wanted to raise taxes to 90% levels.

Social policy is far more important to me, and on that Bush is lightyears ahead of clintoon.

[gcruse]

Another downside is that, in order to get to the left of Bush, the next Democratic presidential candidate will have to run as a socialist. If we wins, that's what will be in office.

[Tacis]

The most wonderful things about President Clinton may never come to light and we will just have to be thankful on a conceptual level. When Willie was thrown out of Oxford for raping that girl, he went to Moscow for 63 days. In Moscow, I believe, he had all the women he could handle, a lot of booze and some fine dope. All of this, of course, was taped and Willie was turned. He became a potential mole of the Soviet government. He probably also got financial support and access to the hidden structure that allowed him and Vince Foster to hide resources in Switzerland.

Where we lucked out was when Reagan destroyed the Evil Empire. Willie no longer had masters and didn't have to follow orders.

He was such a corrupt and corruptable person who surrounded himself with those similarly inclined, that, instead of following up on his indoctrination, he was governed by his corrupt character.

Thus, we shall always be grateful for Reagan's destruction of the Evil Empire and the fact that filthy and corrupt Willie was true to his basic character and never was motivated by principle of any stripe.

[Jhoffa_]

Does it make sense for Bush to try to be a fake liberal?

According to some people, yes it does. Dick Morris had a piece posted yesterday about the need for the GOP to run Powell for Prez in 2004 and ignore all his leftie values if we want to "win"

They claim that Conservative values won't sell and for the survival of the Republican party this shift to center is necessary.

What they don't mention however is why in the world Conservatives would care what happened to the R's if their policies differ only marginally from the rats..

Big push on from the Ford wingers to just chuck everything Conservative and become a sick parody of algor and the party of corruption.

[Jhoffa_]

Who "turned" Willie?

It was those freemasons again, wasn't it?

[bigjoesaddle]

After all, there is a reason why Hong Kong grows so fast and France is an economic basket case.

What is Hong Kong's government...is it like ours?

[AAABEST]

If GWB were a smart businessman he'd share the spoils of war with his hardcore supporters.

"Rewards are necessary in order to make the soldiers see the advantage of beating the enemy; thus, when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account."
Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

[Common Tator]

Presidents and congresses do what the public wants.

The United states is full of people who get it backwards. They think that if they elect the right people the job is done. That is not even close to how the system works.

The best political advice ever given to a candidate was, "Find out where the people want to go. Then lead them there."

Dubya, like all successful politicians, does just that. It is the Goldwater, Mondales, and Dukakises of the world who think they can lead the people where the politicians want to go.

Bush Sr. didn't think the economy needed leader ship in 1992. It didn't. But the public thought it did. They elected Bill Clinton on the "its the economy stupid!" platform.

Dubya will do what the public wants. That will not please you. So you hope you can Dubya can be convinced to do what you want. That won't work on any successful politician. When you have convinced the public to your point of view, the job is done. The government will do exactly what you want. If the pubic is never convinced, then what you want to have happen will never happen.

This is a nation of the people, for the people and by the people. You seem to think it is of the president, by the president and for the president. People not presidents are the answer.

[jpl]

What is Hong Kong's government...is it like ours?

It is officially run by mainland China now, but they have been somewhat hands off fortunately.

Economically, Hong Kong is like us, but even more so.

[Ohioan]

Clinton was a dedicated Fabian Socialist. He cut back on spending only because in the post-Reagan period, that was pragmatic politics. But he allowed a flood of migrants over the Southern border, the vast majority of whom would be from the very lowest classes; people who could well become part of a future Marxist Proletariat, changing the fundamental character of this predominantly middle-class Republic, and making the continuation of institutions which reflect our basic nature, impossible in the long run. In his final State of the Union, he was bold enough even to taunt us with this acomplishment.

Clinton also mocked George Washington's Farewell Address, with one of his own, which paraphrased Washington in Clinton's denial of Washingtonian values. His War on Serbia was a major step towards establishing the Fabian Socialist dream of an Atlantic Union, which was no accident. His use of the American Military to impose a Marxist regime in Haiti, and to promote an asexual value system, was Leftwing beyond anything comparable in American History.

Bush has supported a lot of stupid "Liberal" programs, but I think that at heart he has the Conservative instincts that Clinton's whole life is a denial of. Bush's problem is that he is getting some very, very poor advice.

Our answer is, of course, to rally Conservatives to speak out on matters of principle with a firm assurance; to let those on both sides of the aisle in Washington know that we are awake, and looking for opportunities; that we will rally around any stand for real principle; but we will never blindly endorse what we know to be fundamentally wrong, however much we may like the mistaken ones who propose it.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[caltrop]

Bush's spending in Texas should have made it clear he's a Rockefeller Republican. He believes in government and thinks it's the solution, not the problem. Like his father, he campaigned as a conservative only to be elected.

[j271]

In a certain sense politicians are the ultimate followers. If conservatives make enough noise, the pols will come-a-runnin'.

This requires specific actions on the part of conservatives that want to make sure their views are heard. One recommendation is to support these folks. They are well-organized and are making a difference. Plus, you gotta love the anti-Daschle attack ad they ran in South Dakota.