Posted on 02/27/2006 5:39:30 AM PST by BufordP
It's hard to imagine.
It's difficult to come to grips with the possibility.
It's not even an idea with which I like to wrestle.
But the time has come to consider the notion.
In his new book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, a member of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, takes a hard and sobering look at the presidency of George W. Bush.
He concludes that at least on matters of spending and budget, Bill Clinton was better than our current president.
This is not a conclusion likely to be embraced by many of Bartlett's conservative colleagues. As a "non-conservative," let me take a dispassionate view of the charge. Frankly, though I agree with some of the observations and conclusions of "Impostor," I don't like the way the hypothesis is framed. To propose that Clinton is or was, in any way, "better" than any other president is anathema to me.
Clinton is and was a crook – a charlatan, a rogue, a traitor to his country, virtually without redeeming qualities.
As a victim of his reign of terror in the White House, I cannot look at his administration with any degree of nostalgia.
While Bush sold us out on border security and port security, Clinton did the same. The borders were, if anything, less secure under Clinton, and he sold out control of U.S. ports to the Chinese government for campaign cash. While Bush has done too little, too late to make our nation secure after Sept. 11, Clinton did everything in his power to make our country vulnerable to the inevitable attacks of that day. While Bush seems to have no understanding of the way a constitutionally limited federal government is supposed to operate with restraint, Clinton attempted to rewrite the Constitution with a series of presidential decision directives and executive orders that came close to setting himself up as a dictator of sorts. But, there is one area in which Bush is clearly worse than Clinton. And that is, as Bartlett affirms, the matter of fiscal policy. It is undeniable that Bush has, to date, refused to veto a single piece of legislation passed by Congress. He has spent far more than the previous administration and it is not, as his defenders would suggest, just because of national security concerns. When you take the new Homeland Security behemoth out of the budget, when you take increased defense spending out of the budget, Bush still outspends Clinton significantly. This is an ominous and indefensible fact.
Bush is bankrupting the country. We cannot forever sustain the reckless deficit spending he has approved. It is not only disastrous from a practical point of view, it is morally wrong. Our children and grandchildren will pay a price for it if this generation does not. So, my only argument with Bruce Bartlett on this point is one of semantics. I would not say that Clinton is in any way "better" than George W. Bush or any other president. Clinton was, in every way, a terrible failure, a disgrace to our nation, a human plague that infected the White House for eight years. But, there is no question, when you look at the cold, hard facts of the budgets approved by the two presidents, that Bush is "worse" than Clinton in that one area.
There are many reasons for this. We can find many rationalizations for it. We can make excuses for Bush if we like. For instance, Clinton was forced to deal with a Republican Congress for much of his tenure in office. Republicans showed some political restraint during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, they have displayed no fiscal restraint whatsoever during the Bush years. Republicans in Congress may have had their arms twisted by the White House during the Bush years. They may have believed they were doing their president a favor by giving him what he wanted. However, the result is that after all is said and done, the Bush administration will have a more disgraceful fiscal record than the previous administration. There's just no other conclusion to draw. Read it and weep.
BTW, I don't think Bush is worse than Clinton.
Ping!
I saw your post back in October. Thought you'd be interested in this article.
However, he's not even 2% of the Ronald Reagan that I was hoping for.
Bush understands the importance of tax cuts.
What conservative worth his or her salt doesn't understand the importance of tax cuts? There's a whole lot of other stuff Bush does NOT understand...Or refuses to follow. If you're not familiar with Bruce Bartlett you should become more acquainted with his material. He's a major Townhall.com contributor.
One more highly selective ping.
- George Will
OK. Agreed.
On everything else, however, it's no contest.
So?
He's not the perfect president. There is no such animal.
If the choices were the same tomorrow I would vote for Bush again tomorrow.
Bottom line.
The biggest tax increase in history.
The first retroactive income tax in history.
Taxing Social security checks for the fist time in history...
Sure, Clinton had a historic presidency.
"The borders were, if anything, less secure under Clinton, and he sold out control of U.S. ports to the Chinese government for campaign cash."
Clinton also sold our missile technology to the Chinese. His actions could come back to bite us in the a$$ for decades.
Forget the article's title. This isn't about a choice between Clinton and Bush. Or imagining an Algore administration in its place. It's about, in spite of Republican control of the House and Senate; creating new entitlements, never vetoing pork, signing unconstitutional legislation like CFR, and so on and so on.
Nothing conservative about it.
Well, actually, Bush has NOT had a 'Democratic Congress' to deal with yet, which probably explains his 'no veto's yet' policy more than anything else. But can't argue on this, as this may be his worse legacy, i.e. lack of fiscal restraint.
If Bush could run again in 2008 against say, a field that included George Allen, Mitt Romney, Bill Owen, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, You'd still put Bush on top? Not me.
I report, you decide.
I'm not even sure Bush would have exercised his veto pen against a Democratic congress. Remember, he came into Washington wanting to "set a new tone" and touting his "compassionate" conservatism.
I think Joe Farrah and Bruce Bartlett (me too, of course) would agree with you.
Oh I forgot, I'm not supposed to be talking to you.
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.