Which we largely repealed in 2000. And we had a balanced budget. And yes, it would have been better not to have had a tax increase, but you take the good with the bad (we had an enormous tax increase with GW Bush Sr as well).
You claimed the dems got nothing accomplished in 1992. I note an enormous tax increase. That’s a pretty big accomplishment, perhaps the biggest item conservatives would fight against in thinking about Congress.
The fact that it was peeled back in 2000 (not even close to ‘repealed’) and that Bush Sr signed a tax increase has nothing to do with it.
If the choice is Rudy or Hillary with a dem congress, the latter will be far worse.
I was more pro-Rudy a couple of months ago than I am today, mostly due to some good reasoning made here on FR by anti-Rudy folks. I’d much prefer an electable conservative than Rudy.
But if Rudy wins the nomination, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the leading dems. I’m just baffled why anyone else would stubbornly permit a democrat to win the White House in these times.
I live in CT too and voted for Lieberman in 2006. Why? Because of his support for the war, because Lamont is terrifying, because Schlesinger was hapless and had zero chance. Did I know Lieberman was a big-time liberal? Yes. But I believe I was making a smart political decision given the choices.
Who do you vote for in 2006?