[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Clinton presidency was fine for the country. It brought us control of the house, the economy grew, welfare was reformed, the budget was balanced, etc. The Bush I tax increase was not, and nearly derailed the developing conservative ascendency, caused a recession, threw away 90% public approval, risked a proper wrap up of the cold war, etc"

Jason, you truly need to quit reading liberal papers.

The economic boom experienced during the Clinton administration was the culmination of Reagan's economic plan, the budget was balanced as a result of Bush I's reluctant agreement to break his campaign pledge of no new taxes; Gramm-Rudman, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, called for reduced Federal deficits, and Bush I gained major spending cut concessions from congressional Democrats in exchange for new taxes.

An economy the size of the United States does not turn in a year, nor do deficits to the tune of $200 billion disappear overnight.

As for welfare reform, it was a Republican Congress that put the plan on Clinton's desk to sign, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton for signing it.

FYI...Bill Clinton represented the right wing of the Democratic Party.

[JasonC]

Of course it was Newt's congress. Bill overreaching got us Newt's congress. Bush I did not balance the budget. Bush II has not balanced the budget. Newt did. The Clinton presidency was a disgrace, but not a disaster, for the country.

If you still don't get it, Newt was and is a real conservative, and the Bushes are not. They are national greatness types and sound, even indispensable, on national security matters. But they are not sound on domestic policies. They govern in the middle domestically because compromise seems statesmanlike to them.

Presidents are not everything. Politics is bigger than presidents. Conservatism is bigger than politics. The country is bigger even than conservatism.