Posted on 07/20/2002 6:34:59 PM PDT by kattracks
President Bush's decision to order his Justice Department not to prosecute Bill Clinton and Al Gore despite stark evidence of criminality is coming back to haunt him, with the Democratic duo taking turns this weekend bashing him on the economy before enthusiastic crowds.
Headlining a fund-raiser in Oregon Friday night, ex-President Clinton accused President Bush of badly mishandling the economy, complaining that Republicans have squandered the prosperity he worked so hard to achieve while forcing poor and middle-income people to shoulder an unfair burden by granting tax breaks to the rich.
"The Republicans took us from the biggest surplus in history back to a deficit," Clinton railed before a cheering audience of 850 who gathered to support two statewide candidates.
One of the candidates, Rep. Darlene Hooley, introduced the ex-president saying, "Are you better off two years ago under Bill Clinton than you are today?" the Associated Press said.
A few hours later on Saturday, Vice President Al Gore delivered a similar message to a Tennessee audience, some of which seemed coordinated with the Clinton speech.
The Bush administration has "lied about the future liabilities they have put on our shoulders as taxpayers," Gore complained, before adding, "I don't care what anybody says. I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job."
Like his former boss, Gore cited mounting red ink in the federal budget and predicted that a coming economic downturn would lead to "bigger deficits than when the first Bush was there."
Gore called on the Bush administration to "completely scrap its economic plan and its team on Monday ... start over from scratch and start rebuilding this economy," the AP said.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
I don't want that, therefore I don't say it. He could lose in '04. That's a possibility. But you won't hear me say that he will be a "one-termer."
In other words, if I told a friend that if he didn't stop drinking and driving, he would wind up dead one day, that means I want him to die.
You have some weird logic....if you can call it that.
I believe that people say what they intend to say, and that they mean how it sounded when it came from them. If you say something like this enough, it must mean that you wish for it to happen.
Take the drinking analogy you gave. If you say that you want your friend to stop drinking and driving, it means just that, you want him to stop drinking and driving. Of course it's up to him whether or not he heeds your advice.
Oh, well. Thanks for your time anyway.
A diagnosis does not constitute a wish for harm, no matter how many times it is repeated.
I think Freepers regard Hillary!'s nomination by 2008 as a near metaphysical certitude is because folks like Rush promised that Hitlery's losing her NY Senate race was a near metaphysical certitude. And Bill wouldn't get a second term in '96. And GW Sr. couldn't lose in '92.
So, when someone sez, "Hillary will never win the presidency," I hear a clap of thunder, the clouds darken, the skies open, and the Hand of God writes in Bold All-Caps:
No-one that I know will vote for the junior senator from NY if it runs for President. Americans aren't as fooled as some here on FR would believe.
/john
Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! FINALLY, a voice of reason among the pessimists.....
Again, something I've said a million times and will say again: Why do so many Freepers see President Hillary as a mandate from God, a metaphysical inevitability? She's nothing without the powers of the White House to protect her but a power-mad bitch. She could never ever win most states; the only reason she even won New York is because it has a ton of hardcore RAT voters, welcomes carpetbaggers and because Giuliani dropped out and ended up being replaced by a guy who looked about 22, often acted like it, and campaigned as if he'd inherited his entire advisory team from the Dole '96 fiasco. None of that's going to happen to her on a presidential campaign level
There are all too many people here who believe that President Hildebeast is the Fuhrer in our Future. I could not disagree more. She ran in New York instead of Illinois because she knew she could win in New York instead of Illinois. Giuliani was her only serious threat. I mean, don't get me wrong, Lazio was a nice guy. But he's the kind of guy whose tombstone will read,
"Here lies Richard Lazio.
He Meant Well"
Too many Republicans give in to pessimism. It comes from being out of power in Congress from the 1930's until the ascenscion of Reagan, and later, Gingrich.
I am convinced that the market is about to bottom. This is one of those things that I just simply feel. It's the same feeling I had when I avoided stocks like AOL when it was 400 dollars a share.
But the most important thing is that the initiative is about to pass from the hands of the Democrats once again and there's nothing they can do about it. The President is going to take out Saddam. Operations will begin prior to the November elections; a massive anti-SAM/anti-SCUD-WMD campaign by air to shield our buildup in Turkey, Kuwait, and Qatar. Mehears that reservists and Guardsmen are being mobilized unit by unit. The hammer is about to fall, and there's nothing that Clinton or Mr. Timbertoes can do about it.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.