President William Jefferson Clinton was/is superior to Bush II in every way.
From the economy, to our national security, to our standing and influence in the world, and maybe most importantly, how we viewed ourselves as Americans.
When the final chapter in the Bush II nightmare is written, he will go down in history as the worst president ever. Worse than Grant, Nixon or Ford.
A total and complete failure.
.
Well, times under Clinton were good and prosperous, but unsustainable. I'd compare Bush to the person who is your next lover after The Big Break-up. The rebound woman or man. That person isn't good or bad, but you're not in the best mental state to judge their value as a person. You're still living in the past.
Bush comes along after the prosperous 90's, and the markets were crashing while he was campaigning in 2000 and when being sworn in. The recession was underway while he was taking the oath of President. We were attacked as a nation shortly thereafter. We're dealing with higher energy prices. Time are more difficult now than in the 90's.
So you folks are acting like you got jilted.
Posted by muckdog at January 28, 2006 04:06 PMBush has done to this economy what he did with Harken Energy - trashed it. But what do you expect when you elect a failed CEO to lead the "CEO Presidency?" He's borrowed and overspent like one of the executives at Enron. Except I doubt he owns many government bonds to cash in before the crash.
His self-financed war in Iraq - failure. His Medicare drug benefit - failure. Response to national disasters - failure. Attempt to give Social Security to Wall Street - failure - whew. Now he's trying to give the health insurance industry to Wall Street with HSAs. Want to take a guess on how that'll turn out? We can only hope.
His only success was in pushing through huge tax cuts for the wealthy. But he did that at the same time he expanded the federal government and signed every corporate welfare and pork barrel laden bill that crossed his desk. So, he's created the biggest deficit in the history of this country and is happy to leave a sizeable birth tax behind for our kids and grandchildren to deal with.
Posted by ann at January 28, 2006 04:23 PMSorry, that should have read:
Bush has done to this economy what he did with Arbusto Oil - trashed it. But what do you expect when you elect a failed CEO to lead the "CEO Presidency?" He's borrowed and overspent like one of the executives at Enron. Except I doubt he owns many government bonds to cash in before the crash like he did at Harken Energy.
Posted by ann at January 28, 2006 04:28 PMann, you are right about the effect of this CEO president on the economy. Although the fact he isn't holding bonds to cash in shouldn't be a problem for him. I'm pretty sure that Bush has socked away some of the money that has been extorted from the tax payers while further enriching the uber-wealthy.
Posted by Mary at January 28, 2006 04:35 PMhe's created the biggest deficit in the history of this country
Bzzt.
Not as a percentage of GDP.
Posted by muckdog at January 28, 2006 04:42 PMOh, and did I mention that since Bush doesn't include the cost of the war in Iraq in the budget, well, that deficit's starting to look really scary. If my personal finances were in state Bush will leave this country, I'd take a gun to my head.
Posted by ann at January 28, 2006 05:01 PMMuckyFucky would try to rationalize his way out of a guilotine, but with that, as with this, he would only come off as an irrational shiteater about to lose his head.
MuckyFuckrot conveniently forgets to mention Bush's "stuff the pockets of the rich" tax cuts, which are directly responsible for much of these deficits. You see, in a GOP voodoo economy, a rising sea does not raise all ships; it sinks the little ones as the big ones float higher.
The GOP has sucked at econ 101 ever since Ronnie Raygun came to power. Its all smoke and mirrors, borrow and bilk...voodoo, if you will. It's economic theory that bucks reality and fucks working Americans while lining the pockets of the wealthiest.
Let's just call it what it is: ARISTOCRACY.
Posted by God Of War at January 28, 2006 05:27 PMA person like Bartlett belongs on a show like Hardball, so people can see how Bush's policies have hurt this country. But in order to do that Chris Matthews would have to invite Bartlett on his show and to have someone who criticizes Bush on Hardball is, at best, a remote possibility.
Posted by Erroll at January 28, 2006 05:28 PMI'd compare Bush to the person who is your next lover after The Big Break-up. The rebound woman or man.
As a big liberal faggot, I can assure you that the fuck after the beakup is not nearly as fulfilling nor never as sweet. Afterwards, there are always regrets. A lot like Busch after the Supremes intervened. Lots of regrets. And the old lover haunts your mind, especially if they were better at everything than the new one...you know, things like carrying on a conversation that makes sense. Just like Clinton v. Busch.
Well, times under Clinton were good and prosperous, but unsustainable.
No one ever expects...the lunatic Busch inquisition!
Thank God the total debt is only 40-45% of GDP. That ain't bad...until the notes come due. Add this years deficit spending to this years military budget, and you almost get the $1 trillion in corporate welfare this year alone. God, life in the kingdom o'Busch is sweet! Some of us serfs don't know our place yet, but they are working on it.
Posted by phidipides at January 28, 2006 07:27 PM"...on how good Clinton was as a president in comparison."
Yes, how very good he was.
From USA Today:
"The Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods rose 1.3% in December to $228.1 billion as demand for military aircraft, machinery and autos all posted strong gains.
For all of 2005, orders increased 8.2% to an all-time high of $2.51 trillion. Orders for durable goods had risen 10% in 2004 and 4.2% in 2003 after posting declines in 2002 and 2001, the year the country was in recession."
Why do leftist always wish for the worst? Why do Leftists always want the most awful conditions?
You folks are done. You wish for the most awful things. Yours is the ideaology of doom and gloom. The Democratic Party (in it present incarnation) is dead. An awful thing.....the Democrats were once a viable party (populated by good and decent people). Do you realize that JFK would not be welcome in today's Democratic Party. What are you left with: Clinton, a liar, and his wife, a woman of very, very questionable honesty. Perhaps, Jimmy Carter, a man who ruined the US economy and US credibility. Jimmy Carter, a man who never meet a terrorist he did not like. Michael Moore and Randi Rhodes and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Cindy Sheehan and John Walker Lind. The Democrats have nothing and the "progrssives" have even less.
You are done.
O.K. so all 3 parties suck. How about a military junta? Real warriors could beat these chickenhawks without firing a shot, and West Point grads could'nt possibly do worse than Bushco. Hell, they would have the common sense to save the military for a REAL threat.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 28, 2006 08:28 PMBagel troll, I thought you got called up to do some real U.S. Army time? What, too much squid in you to do more time? Your Broke Back buddies wouldn't let you go?
Damn dude lay off the Clinton stuff, it's very old hat.
BTW, being a leftist, I want the best conditions for the soldiers in Iraq, can bu$hco say the same? I say we stop staying the course and win the fucking war or get out! That would be best for troop morale and the welfare of our troops. Your pResident is fucking it up on a grand scale over there. Theocrats in Iraq, theocrats in the US. What a bunch of shit you support!! With bu$h, there is no clear objective...except money, human suffering and to know our constitution is being dragged in the dirt by this coward! And your complicit because you support his dragging down the constitution, remember your soldier's oath! Come on over from the dark side Bagley!
Posted by bbtb at January 28, 2006 09:14 PMbbpb: WE don need no stinkin APS, we got SRP. I'm sure BUSHCO SOUTHWEST will have our electric rates raised, too. Hear any gunshots today?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 28, 2006 10:13 PMGreat post Mary.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 28, 2006 10:26 PMGet your friends, family and associates to send this fax now.
http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/AlitoFilibuster
Posted by at January 28, 2006 11:17 PM"Stuff the pockets of the rich with tax cuts?" What Bush did was to let people keep more of the money that belongs to them, not the government.
Posted by Skeptic at January 29, 2006 05:50 AMHere's a potential canary in the coal mine...
Our buddy Ralph Nader, who's been tilting at windmills for years, finally gets it.
Sorry, Ralph Nader link was me...
Posted by Roy Batty at January 29, 2006 06:50 AMtimes under Clinton were good and prosperous, but unsustainable… Bush comes along after the prosperous 90's, and the markets were crashing while he was campaigning in 2000 and when being sworn in. The recession was underway while he was taking the oath of President. We were attacked as a nation shortly thereafter. We're dealing with higher energy prices….Posted by muckdogPosted by muckdogYour statement that prosperity was unsustainable is unsubstantiated. A more responsible person would not have advocated such an unjustifiable tax policy and would have kept a tighter rein on government expenditures. The markets took a dive when the Internet bubble collapsed, but recovered. The economy was showing because Greenspan was raising interest rates for one of his "soft landings." The recession did not begin until March 2001, long after Bush took the oath of office in January. You disseminate a revisionist history which is bizarre because everyone still remember the events. We were successfully attacked because Bush ignored all warning and did nothing to prevent it. His abject failures show how unworthy he is of his job and the praise you heap upon him
Not as a percentage of GDP. Posted by muckdogTechnically that distinction belongs to another Republican president, Ronald Reagan, but remember, you have to add the Social Security surplus to Bush's deficit numbers. Those surpluses did not exist in Reagan's time. You should also remember that Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history, adjusted for inflation, to reduce his deficits. Bush is trying to extend his tax cuts to increase the size of his.
Why do Leftists always want the most awful conditions? … Posted by BagleyActually, if you could read, you would have noticed that it is the left that want prosperity for all, not just the upper quintile of Americans like the right. And while you smear good patriotic Americans in the best Rovian manner, it is George W. Bush who has done more to increase terrorist around the world and who has done the most to aid bin Laden's recruitment efforts. George W. Bush: the terrorist's best friend. Posted by Mike at January 29, 2006 03:28 PM
"Your Broke Back buddies wouldn't let you go?"
Hello! Your homophobia is showing. Perhaps it is just projection. Sorry, pal, I am happily married to a beautiful, smart, vivacious woman -- my life partner and the Mother of my children.
"Damn dude lay off the Clinton stuff, it's very old hat."
Have someone read you the original post: the author was praising Clinton. I was simply responding.
"Actually, if you could read, you would have noticed that it is the left that want prosperity for all, not just the upper quintile of Americans like the right."
Mike, have you seen the homeownership statistics lately?
"And while you smear good patriotic Americans in the best Rovian manner..."
Carter? Sheehan? Moore? The "American Taliban" John Walker Lind: you have a strange definition of "patriotic Americans.
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 05:30 PMBagley, if you could read, you would have seen that the person praising Clinton and his handling of the economy is a conservative economist who worked in Reagan and Bush Sr's administration. He is *not* impressed with the mess that Shrub has created. You might want to figure out why a conservative is so unhappy with your hero.
Posted by Mary at January 29, 2006 06:24 PMMary,
The original post -- leading into the quoted paragraph -- references the paragraph with the following snippet:
"...Bush II a horrible president for the economy and reflects on how good Clinton was as a president in comparison."
In that the quoted paragraph does not refer to President Bush as a "horrible President," I can only infer that the Poster, Mary (is that you?), not only agrees with the tone of the quoted paragraph but amplifies the opinion.
I address the issue of the lead into the quoted paragraph, not the author of the quoted paragraph.
But on the subject of te author of the quoted paragraph, Wolcott, [is] a pop-culture columnist masquerading as a policy pundit. By extension, an anti-Bush adherent at war with those who critique [his] the brilliant insights of the anti-war/andti-Bush crowd (see his book "Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants").
Anything else?
Posted by Bagley at January 29, 2006 06:55 PMBagley, if you bothered to click through to Wolcott's piece where I pulled Bartlett's quotes, you would have seen the title of Bartlett's book is:
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
You can decide whether my charge that Bartlett, a known conservative, considers Bush a horrible president is too harsh or not. And again, the quotes were from Bartlett's book, not the words of Wolcott. He certainly agreed with Bartlett's assessment, as do I, because he pulled them out of the book and posted them on his blog. Please spend some of your time worrying about the fact that your hero is getting blasted by others than just us liberals.
I think only the totally delusional are capable of believing the Bush presidency is anything but an unmitigated failure and a disaster not only for America but for the world. Too bad our future has been jeopardized by that fool you support.
Posted by Mary at January 29, 2006 09:07 PM