Bush vs. ClintonFollow

You guys, and many other people, seem to be criticizing Bush and his supporters. Often comparing him to Clinton and his administration. Because Bush is still in office, his Presidency can not be judged as well as past Presidencies. But I will do my best.

Clinton: Although Clinton was in office during a good economy, what did he really do? Did he solve anything, or just ride an upturn in the economy and the loudmouths of liberals into the history books as a good President. My main problem with Clinton was not his lack of initiative, but his lack of resolve. Whenever the going got tough, he backed down. How about when the USS Cole got bombed in port. How about when our rangers were left in Mogadishu without proper back up and authority. And countless bombings that accomplished little but wasting tax money and innocent lives. Another outrage was his handling of the budget. WHY WOULD HE RUN A SURPLUS. The government is not a company, no body owns stock in it, no body makes money from it. There is no reason that our government should be running on a surplus. The biggest complaint I hear coming from the left is how Bush LIED to us about WMD. How can we trust him now? Bush was just doing what any good leader would do and trusted his people and his info. CLinton on the otherhand commited a federal offense. He lied in a federal court under oathe. If he wasn't President at the time he would have went to jail.

Clinton was a great politician, not a great president.

Bush:

Bush has much to be ashamed of as well. He was wrong on the WMD (to date anyways) And people under him have not performed well, which directly reflects on him. Besides the war, Bush does not have much to brag about besides some efforts to turn around the economy.(Tax-Cuts etc.) As a local radio commercial said in a John Kerry voice,"George W. Bush is selfishly shoving over 100,000 dollars a day in to the hands of hard working Americans" Before you say anything just think about trickle down economics and shut-up. The biggest plus that Bush has going for him is his morals and his resolve. He is the first President in the history of Arabic/Islamic terrorists to have the balls to do anything about it. It is bad politics but remains to be seen if he can make it a good presidency.

Clinton presided over the greatest period of economic growth and prosperity in the histroy of the US. Lowest unemployment, largest government surplus, high points in every statistical economic measure.

It would be exceptionaly difficult to make an argument that there has been a better performance by a president since FDR.

Bush, conversly has presided over the greatest period of lost jobs in half a century and run up the largest defecit in the histroy of the country. He also invaded Iraq and has failed to effectively combat islamic terrorists in any meaningfull way.

I would say Clinton makes it like an old Mike Tyson fight.

Just for comparison what did Reagan do to retaliate for the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, oh ya he pulled out.

How about Bush Sr. after another couple hundred people got killed on a Pan Am flight, both attacks by Al queda, um nothing again.

Ever take FMLA ( Clinton) know why you dont have to pay Capital Gain tax on your house (Clinton) it just goes on and on. He will probably be remembered as one of the best Presidents of the 43 who have taken the oath. He is already the best president to serve in the 21st Century.

hold it a second.. Clinton passed the bill to recind the capitol gains tax on home sales? hmmm no the congress did. The President gives his suggestion for what he would like the budget to be the congress decides what the budget will be.

It's about as signfigant as burning down a single crack house in Compton and thinking you've gone a long way to solving the crack problem.

There's two ways to look at how Presidents effect the economy.

1. Not at all, they're just along for the ride.
2. They guide economic policy using the power of the Executive branch.

I think there's merit to both arguments, but if you chose to apply one or the other you must apply it equally to all presidents.

Let me know which one you want to use and we'll discuss the relative merits of the two presidents accordingly.

Which Pan Am flight was that? do you mean Pan Am 101 over Lockebie?

Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't Al Queda.


Clinton managed to broker a deal in Northern Ireland, preside over a bouyant ecconomy and make the USA reletively popular with it's best potential Allies in Europe.

Bush has destoryed eight years of hard work in three years and i hope the American people are smart enought to see what a clusterF'uck he is and sling him out at the first opporunity.

It's interesting to hear that quite a few here also really enjoyed having Clinton as President. He made me feel comfortable and safe, regardless of all that scandal. When I see Bush I feel one of two things: amusement at how dense he seems or anger at what a warmonger he is.

Of course he did. He's a big, goofy lookin teddy bear of a man. Most women are made feel comfortable and safe around those types of men, because they don't see them as a threat.

EDIT: My laptop will now be secured with a heavy chain and drownded.

Edited, Fri May 28 15:48:51 2004 by MoebiusLord

298 Americans died it was pan am 103 and ya it was over lockebie and it was libyan terrorists that have ties to the current alqueda. But you are right al queda had not been offically been formed as such. The point is Bush let 298 Americans die and did nothing to retaliate.

So are we basically trying to say that Bush is a dumbass and should be removed from office? Or atleast shot??

That's an interesting observation. I also tend to agree with it as well. I am curious if that's a really good thing though. Did we feel safer during the Clinton years because we really were? Or did we feel safer because our government was kinda ignoring threats and choosing to keep the public ignorant of what was going on (or worse, were just hiding their eyes and were ignorant as well?)?

Were we playing the equivalent of "If I can't see you, you can't see me"? How much of the shock of 9/11 was because we'd had 8 years where our government made us feel "safe", only to have the harsh reality of the world hit us in the face? If Clinton had made it his business to make the US people feel *not* safe in the face of growing terorirst activities around the world, might there have been more demand then that something be done? While I'm not going to try to play the hindsight blame game here, you have to wonder if "making people feel safe" is always the best thing.


The same type of argument can be made about Clintons economic policies. Sure, we had huge economic growth. And I am one that gives a president credit for that to some degree. But I can't help but think that his methodology was the equivalent of a gambler continuing to "let it ride" when he's on a winning streak. You can win a hell of a lot very fast that way, but you will eventually lose. Personally, I think Clinton just got lucky that the crash happened one year after he left office. I also believe that if he'd been a bit more cautious, he may have stunted some of the growth while it was happening, but would have likely helped avoid a major economic crash once the market turned.

Now maybe the presidency is totally different then any other job, but usually, if one person leaves a shift and the other guy takes his place, and 15 minutes later all hell breaks loose, it's usually because of something the guy who just left did, not something the guy who just walked in the door did.

IMO, Clinton did the equivalent of stuffing everything in a closet. It made the room look really nice and clean, and it looked like he was taking care of evertyhing, but as soon as Bush walked in and opened that closet door, everything came crashing out. I just find it hard to blame Bush when he gets a major market crash and a major terrorist event that both occur within the first year of his term. That's just too soon for any of his policies to have had anything to do with them. And way too soon after Clinton left for it to be total coincidence. Those eventa had to at least be 90% or more the result of Clinton's policies and not Bush's.

Which is largely why I don't consider Clinton to be the great president that some do. I think he was pretty good. He was certainly a good speaker, and he was charismatic. But "great"? I don't think so.


Bush is certainly not the speaker that Clinton is. However, I think it's unfair to judge his presidency bsed on events that he largely had no control over. It's kinda hard to try to compare the two directly. After all, we have no idea what Clinton would have done if the disasters that occurred during Bush's presidency had occured during his. Contrawise, we have no idea what kind of president Bush would have been if there hadn't been so many emergencies occuring so early in his presidency.

We were safer, but not because of who was in which office. It was because someone had not made their plans yet and was bidding their time to attack. 9/11 could of happened several years ago it was just a matter of chance on when it happened. But then again Clintons CIA had its own problems preventing terrorism, Oklahoma City, but that is because terrorism happens when people are not ready for it.

Anybody wonder what Dubya will do to occupy his time after he leaves the White House? Probably run a few more major enterprises into the ground? Or up his nose perhaps?

Let's see what Clinton's been up to. For a President whom some think was largely ineffectual or blind to business and the economy, he seems to be doing pretty well in New York.

Clinton growing big ideas for small NYC small businesses

http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.com/hsbpp.html