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.

[FreeReign]

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.

There is no such thing as "hands-off" when your Constitution and government is controlled by Communists.

[FreeReign]

Perhaps most importantly, there was a substantial reduction in federal spending as a share of gross domestic product during the Clinton years. Using the growth of domestic spending as a benchmark, Clinton was the second most conservative president of the post-World War II era, trailing only Ronald Reagan.

This reduction in federal spending as a share of GDP happened after the congressional elections of 94. I don't give Clinton credit for this. The trend has now reversed again -- increased federal spending as a share of GDP -- since the D's have taken over the Senate.

[FreeReign]

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

dirtboy:C.T., that is probably sound advice for winning elections. It is probably also sound advice for losing the Repubic...

Why should the politicians give a flying freep about retaining a free republic if the voting public doesn't?

[goodnesswins]

With all due respect, I did NOT write these (I believe texasforever did)......BUT, they say a LOT!!!!!!!!!!

1. Democrat would be throwing living embryos in the waring blender with federal funds now to make stem cells. They'd still be federally funding overseas abortions.
2. Democrats would never have passed a tax cut.
3. Democrats would never have made the War on Terror non-negotiable or enunciated the Bush Doctrine of not allowing nations to harbor them, nor called the terrorists evil. Democrats would not be planning how to get Saddam.
4. Democrats would never have put testing and accountability and the beginning of vouchers in the education bill, and begun to set up accountability for teachers (teacher retraining).
5. Democrats would never have nixed the Kyoto Treaty.
6. Democrats would never have gone ahead with missile defense system.
7. Democrats would have kissed the feet of the Chinese and said we were partly to blame for EP-1 collision, like my dogsh*t Senator, Feinstein, did, and dishonored our crew there.
8. I'm running out of time.... The most important thing Bush has done is to keep the Democrats from doing horrific things that aren't even in the news, because his hot bod is in the White House, and not Gore's.

[EternalLife]

He is rapidly losing conservatives and hopefully he's not so stupid as to believe he can win without them.

No, he knows he can't win without conservatives. That's why he will throw them a bone just before the election, to give them a reason to get out and vote for him.

[Texasforever]

While I agree with that list I did not write it. Having said that, many people never recognize, or refuse to, the limitations on a president in what he can or cannot do. They want a return to what they call the "constitution" in one breath and then want to ignore the Constitution by insisting that a president use dictatorial powers to implement their pet issues. It is an amazing contradiction to witness.

[Brimack34]

Clintoon had Newt!! Bush had Jeffer's!!! That is the end of this story. Pol's on one side. Control of senate on the other.

[supercat]

By the same token important elements of the conservative agenda were enacted under or acquiesed to by Clinton, who is maybe the most conservative Democrat president in modern times, yet conservatives hate. And yes, I know why they hate him, and I hate him too, but I still think this is an interesting parallel.

I did not vote for Dole in 1996 (I voted for Browne). It is truly unfortunate that the Republicans wasted so much political capital backing such a lousy candidate, when they should have worked to keep strong enough control on Congress to keep Clinton in check.

Imagine what would have happened if Republican congresscritters running for reelection ran ads which acknowledge Clinton's claimed "accomplishments", but reminded voters that they came from a Republican Congress and suggest that if voters like Clinton's accomplishments they should support Republicans in Congress.

Had Republicans done that, they would have scored a major coup. Not only would such ads have struck a major chord with voters who were tired of negative campaigns, but the Democrats would be unable to counter it without attacking themselves.

Unfortunately, rather than Republicans taking credit for their accomplishments, they expended their energy trying to trash Clinton and his (i.e. THEIR OWN) accomplishments. While I'd hardly call Clinton a conservative, many of his actions were in fact to the right of many of his Republican detractors.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

The Cato group is a leftist think tank, of course they are going to make President bush look as bad as they can.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I hear this all the time and it gets old. Bush campaigned as who he is not as some ultra conservative. If he had a view that has had to change since 9/11 it doesn't alter his consistant views.

[spetznaz]

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.

That statement somewhat reminds me of the excuses given by the mothers of convicted criminals ....for example: Josh may have been implicated in this abhorable rape/murder ....but at heart he has always been a good boy and even spent weekends with his grandma helping with the laundry! He just got very poor social development in public school.

Basically i would not have a bleeding heart for Josh ....why? Because he may have had 'poor advice' and may have 'at heart' been wanting to help his granny when he was cutting up his victims, BUT he still did the crime! Same thign with Bush .....he may 'at heart' be a conservative president, and he may 'at heart' be meaning to keep his electoral promises, but he is not! I do not know what is in his 'heart', but i do see what is being done and how he has done things like expanding govt (more in 2 yrs than Klington did in 8), establishing programs that are so anti-constitution and socialist they make me cringe (eg TIPS ....which seems to make the USA into the USSA) and an apparent ignorance of the economy (i say apparent because he is not ignoring it, but the 'common voter' losing his 401K will see it as White House ignorance).

Thus it really does not matter what is in his heart! It is what is done that matters.

A crude analogy is that if i ever had a pet being swept by a flood i would rather have a bloody murderer save my pet than to have a glorious preacher watch it drown but have 'thoughts in his heart' of saving it. Action takes precedence over intention. I would rather have good actions by a person with bad intentions than bad actions from a person with good intentions.

[spetznaz]

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.

by. FF578

First of all the USA is not a theocracy! It is a constitutional republic! This means that any president of these United States of America has a deeper obligation than just ensuring he is 'Anti-Sodomite, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-Porn, Anti-Fornication, Anti-Drug, Anti-Adultery.' He(or she) has to ensure people have a good life instead of a mere existance! He(or she) has to ensure that people have meaningful employment, and furthermore take a good portion of the gains from their employment home to their families and dependants (meaning NO 90% TAXES)! He(she) has to ensure the people are safe from domestic and foreign threats. Has to ensure their surroundings are kept safe for future generations. Has to ensure that the military is potent enough to act as a viable deterrent (as well as to whoop @$$ whenever necessary). Has to ensure the economy is not only strong and stable but also capable of growing at a rate sustainable to numerical increases to the populace. ETC ETC ETC ETC!

Thus essentially the essence of a president is more, much more, than your rather myopic (sorry) list of ensuring the WhiteHouse is 'Anti-Sodomite, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-Porn, Anti-Fornication, Anti-Drug, Anti-Adultery.' I agree with most of those assertations (as long as the WhiteHouse is not ASSERTING itself in a quasi-dictatorial manner ...for example imprisoning anyone who does not want to own a gun). I see your point and concur with parts of it.

However when you say that is your only criteria, and you would even put in a president who would tax 90% of peoples income i wonder if you wrote that post as some sort of jest or what. 90%, that translates to a person who makes 100,000 taking home only 10,000 to his family ...and a person who makes 10,000 taking home only 1,000 dollars to live on for a YEAR!

I hope that you were just trying to sue a crude analogy to make a point because honestly speaking that list is a little asinine. I too would want a president who is anti-child molestation, anti-crime, anti-drug, anti-corruption, pro-life etc etc ...BUT i would NOT vote for him if he also at the same time wants to increase taxation (to 90% as you stated), decrease the military, implement socialist programs, conduct public beheadings and rip apart the constitution! Definitely not.

My check list for a viable president would be considerably more comprehensive than yours. And although i respect your point of view i sincerely pray most Americans do not think like you do and will think twice before electing a moster who would destroy what makes the USA the USa just because he says he is pro-Gun! That would be like inviting a serial killer into your home and letting him crash at your daughter's bedroom just because he told you that he loved baby rabbits and always flossed before he went to bed!

Asinine!

I want a righteous president ....but i also want a president.

[attagirl]

>> I realized with certainty that the fix was in when Ashcroft got behind executing McVeigh, The Man Who Knew Too Much. << You seem to have stumbled onto the wrong website. Here's the one that you were looking for: Amnesty International Huh?

[BillyBoy]

You're mad at Ashcroft for executing an unremorful psychotic baby-killer, McVeigh, one of the worst terrorists in the history of this country. I supposed you'd perfer taxpayers fund his three-squares a day for next 50 years. And you want me to believe McVeigh would someone "talk" if kept in prison even though he never has and has absolutely no reason to do so-- he despises the idea.

Hmmm. Those beliefs would fit in nicely with the chorus of bleeding-heart liberals screaming how Bush is such blood-thirsty right-winger for giving criminal scum what they deserve. Remember their "outrage" when he killed Karla Fay Tucker? According to liberals, everyone up for execution is either 1) poor and/or a minority, 2)"truly sorry" for the crime they committee-- they changed their ways, "found God" and have redeemed themselves, etc. etc., OR 3) "about to talk" and name names until they were silenced by government conspricy. The latter was used by bleeding hearts to oppose the execution of John Wayne Gacy (killed dozens of teenage boys) here in Illinois. We were supposed to believe he was gonna give lots of information about where the bodies were, after saying nothing 15 years. I remember all the ultra-lefty Green Party people insisting Governor Edgar was involved in some kind of conspircy to "silence" him. You'd really like these people, the way they rant and rave at conservatives for following the rule of law.

You know what? McVeigh is dead and I couldn't be happier. Not a day too soon. Interesting enough, a fellow named TERRY NICHOLS is still alive. REMEMBER HIM?? (Most of the "McVeigh conspricy" folks have no recollection, since they keep insisting their is a plot to "make us believe" McVeigh "acted ALONE")Terry Nichols was with McVeigh every step of the way and EVERYONE knows it. If there was a conspircy, the government would have to wipe out Nichols to ensure he "wouldn't talk", since he can name the names that McVeigh would have. Nichols is still alive and well in prison, isn't he? Gee, that's odd. The government coverup must not be going right.

[caltrop]

I didn't suggest he'd run as an ultra-conservative. He ran as a conservative. Unfortunately, since he sees the government as the answer to society's problems and not a big part of the problem and he's happy to expand the budget dramatically to do it he's not a Reagan Republican but a Rockefeller Republican. He's not a conservative but, because it's essential in winning Republican national primaries, he said he was. Same as his father.

The reason you hear it all the time is that it's true.

[jwalsh07]

While I'd hardly call Clinton a conservative, many of his actions were in fact to the right of many of his Republican detractors.

Name one.

[goodieD]

I guess our priorities are different. Being a Christian, adhering to the Bible is more important than money. I don't want to be taxed at 90 percent either.. but if I could give up 90 percent of my income and it insured, 100 percent, that not another baby would be murdered in the mother's womb, it would be worth it to me.

[Bill Davis FR]

How many Conservative Judges would Gore Have appointed?

just as many as bush has...lol

[supercat]

While I'd hardly call Clinton a conservative, many of his actions were in fact to the right of many of his Republican detractors.

Name one.

If you look at Clinton's 1995-1996 record, he was in fact pretty good at passing stuff the Republicans game him, even though his normal pattern was to turn down the proposal, introduce the exact same thing himself, and then claim credit for it. In 1996, I cringed to hear some of the Republican's attacks against Clinton since they were attacking him for pushing proposals that had originated with the Republicans. I suppose some of those pre-election attacks against Clinton might not constitute "actions", but the fact remains that Clinton was not nearly as wedded to liberal principles as people here claim; he was a greedy, selfish, man, but if he thought he could benefit personally by advancing a conservative cause such as welfare reform, he would do so.