Clinton was primarily responsible for the 1994 GOP take-over of Congress...much of the good things that conservatives have enjoyed stem from that one event...
You're right, though the posted rant-letter is not all that well-written. However, I agree with you that without Clinton, the GOP would not have gained as much we did in all elections from 1992-2002 except 1998 because of the revulsion factor. We probably could not have passed welfare reform without Clinton's triangulation. Even his tax increases (along with the Bush 41 tax increase coupled with the temporary cap on congressional spending) did indeed help reduce the deficit without materially slowing the economy, though the booming economy played a huge role in producing the necessary tax revenues.
But the Devil overclaims his successes, many of which were forced on him by Gingrich's Contract for America and a Republican Congress. Clinton's greatest claim of success was the economy though he had almost nothing to do with its stellar performance since it was really an extension of Reaganomics (the press stopped calling it that when supply-side economics was shown to work -- the tide that raised all boats) -- interrupted briefly by Greenspan's obsession with bringing inflation to zero by increasing interest rates to 10%.
Moreover, Clinton burst his own bubble in large part by attacking biotech, telecom, and high tech firms like Microsoft, not to mention the bankrupting tactics (85 companies out of business due to asbestos claims alone?) of his loyal trial lawyer supporters and other measures which swelled the costs of doing business. The resultant crash of the stock markets and drying up of seed money contributed to the recession Bush had to confront. If there's silver-lining, Bush is burnishing the credentials of conservatives and supply-siders by bringing the economy out of its malaise at just the right time.
Overall, however, anyway you cut it, America would have been better off without Clintin and his wife. You can't convince me otherwise.