quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

Not true. Bush inherited a budget surplus, quickly squandered in tax cuts.

Many people did however describe the presidency after Clinton's as a poisoned chalice, because it was acknowledged that global macro-economic movements would lead to a recession. This has come to pass. This wasn't something Clinton could control (nor should he even if he could in a free market), as it was global in nature.
Many LIBERALS described it that way !

Again, the recession began under Clinton, after the prime rate was raised five quarters in a row, before the effect of the first few raisings could be seen, and this excessively slowed growth.
Again, the recession had begun a year before G.W. Bush was inaugurated.

It's pure and simple biased propaganda to blame the recession on Bush.
Up until 9-11-01, indicators were that the economy was beginning to move out of recession.

And the budget surplus you mention that was used up and became a deficit under Bush, is almost entirely due to necessary spending on homeland security and other defense measures, that are a direct result of 9/11/2001, and these increases would have occurred no matter WHO was President. It's rather biased to blame these increases on Bush.

I'm in the difficult position of defending a President I didn't elect and whose policies I don't think are the best (as I've said elsewhere, I voted for Ralph Nader, and would have voted Republican if John McCain were offered as the Republican candidate).
But regardless, I stand by him (Bush ) as President, until a future election gives me an alternative.

I don't favor Bush's massive tax cuts. But I do think the liberal press is unfairly one-sided in blaming the sagging economy on Bush. The disappearing budget surplus has virtually ALL been spent on homeland security. An unforseeable expense, when Bush took office.

quote:

4. Under a President Gore (whose petty clinging...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

A slightly partisan comment, to say the least. Without going into the intricacies of the election, the matter was resolved with due process: Gore had every right to contest the validity of what happened, and accepted the conclusion with grace.
My comment about Gore is admittedly partisan. But also largely based on Gore's rhetoric supporting the U.N. (and thus demonstrating a lack of will to oppose it).
And also based on Clinton's actions, including the 1998 missile bombings that were inneffectual, and known by Clinton to be inneffectual before they were done.
If Clinton and Gore had the will to do what needed to be done, 9-11 would never have occured, and Hussein would have been removed as soon as the U.N. inspectors were booted from Iraq in 1998.

But Clinton was more concerned with maintaining popularity and not committing troops (the shadow of Somalia looming large), and lying about his status with Monica Lewinsky, until her producing a semen-stained dress made the affair undeniable.

I found the article from the Economist (although obviously fictitious and satirical) to be clearly written by a liberal hand, the clear mark of which is the writer's inability to resist a few cheap digs at Bush. And although interesting, his high praise of Gore (while fliply trashing G.W. Bush) clearly likewise reflects the writer's biases.

Regarding Gore's "gracefully" conceding the election, that too is a partisan observation on your part.

The Democratic Party made clear they would not choose Gore as candidate again, because THEY were not happy with Gore's antics during the disputed 2000 election.

~

It's interesting to note that during the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy Presidential election, that Nixon likewise had the option to demand a recount.
But for the good of the nation, and knowing the divisiveness it would raise, he chose not to.
And when you know about John F. Kennedy's father ---Joseph Kennedy's-- ties to the Mafia, and that there is absolutely no dispute that the Mafia tampered with an earlier Senate election, initially getting Robert Kennedy in office as Senator of New York, it seems quite arguable that Nixon had more right to a recount in the 1960 Presidential election.

~

Gore had THREE recounts before the election was ended by the U.S. Supreme Court, and was beginning a fourth. He had lost, and was trying every last ditch effort to turn the tide, and he didn't care that, despite a low chance of it getting him elected, it plunged the U.S stock market into chaos for five weeks, and lost a number of middle class Americans (who he alleged to be the candidate who greater represents the middle class) a ton of money.

The only thing that Gore might be better at than Bush is acquiescing to the U.N. and other interests, over the best interests of the U.S. and its national security.

I say that from the example of what Clinton did as President.
  • Allowing China to steal missile technology to build leaner/meaner ICBM's to point at the United states
  • stretching out lies over his own sexual affair, to take up a huge amount of the National agenda, that stifled public policy and legislation from being conducted, and cost taxpayers 40 million dollars for an investigation his own deceit prolonged.
  • refusing to do much to resolve either the Iraqi situation or the Palestinian situation
In so many situations, doing the POPULAR thing and the expedient thing, instead of the RIGHT thing.
But I digress, on an admittedly partisan tangent. But no less partisan than the words I'm responding to.
None of us are without opinions, and it's impossible to say what a Gore Presidency would be like, and how, or IF, it would pursue a different path than a Clinton Presidency.

~

In contrast, Bush and Blair have moved to action, despite the fact that the other world powers, for ulterior reasons, want to delay action against Iraq indefinitely.

Again, I see the current action as equivalent to neutralizing Hitler in 1936 or 1938, before he had a chance to become much more formidable.

And again, I see the opposition as being much more anti-Bush than anti-war, with the relentless need to tell us Bush is an idiot, and offering no real alternative solutions to what Bush is doing.

I have reservations about some of the specific statements Bush, Rumsfeld and others have made, and some mistakes have been made. But I generally support their action. And I think it's a myth that France, Germany and Russia were on the fence and would have come aboard. I think the U.S. leadership saw they weren't coming aboard regardless of how the U.S. pursues the issue, and finally acted accordingly.