The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 10 of 21)

: /p> p>I have to agree with you on a lot of your points concerning Bush. I am a Reagan Republican and I supported both Bushes (though holding my nose while doing so) only because the alternative was unthinkable to me. I never voted for Clinton nor could I even fathom doing so. Clinton held the line because a Republican-controlled Congress kept him to it. If Clinton had his way, he would have increased spending, taxes, and government programs beyond what Bush has done. Clinton gutted the military and in spite of it, the military survived because it adapted, but at a cost. Now back to G.W. This President reminds me of a Democrat we had in office once. This person had a program called "Guns and Butter." While fighting a war in Vietnam, he increased social programs (War on Poverty) in much the same way Bush has done. The major difference being no draft and tax cuts between the two (Johnson raised taxes). Yes, you are pretty much on the money but the only difference between Bush and Clinton (other than morals, defense spending) was a Congress which held the line. br> -- Pete Chagnon /p>

Does Bruce Bartlett keep a straight face when he says that the economics of the Clinton administration was superior to today? Remarkable! Just what Clinton policies led to a better economy? Perhaps it was the Y2K hoax!!

The truth is, is that Clinton is the Forrest Gump of presidents. He was at the right place at the right time. He inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush (the Bush recession was over by the fall of '92). Clinton then did his best to destroy the economy with tax increases, but the 94 Republican Congress overruled him. To get reelected in '96, he took Dick Morris's astute advice and signed welfare reform (a Republican idea) after he twice vetoed it. The last two years of the Clinton years, the country was misled by Billy Daley and the Commerce Department, which was putting out phony corporate earnings.

p>You might say that Clinton rode in on a lie (the worst economy in 50 years) and he rode out on a lie (it's a new economy, buy and hold!). br> -- Jack Hughes br> Chicago, Illinois /p>

Bruce Bartlett's rant against Bush might be better aimed at the once-called Gingrich Congress. Bush never sold himself as a Reagan Republican (unfortunately). If Bush is guilty of anything it was trying to deliver the agenda he campaigned on -- much of which I disagreed with -- more federal involvement in education, prescription drug benefit, no action on illegal immigration, etc.

p>Bush is a lame duck now and it would be wiser to direct our anger at a Republican Congress that lacked a backbone to defeat some of Bush's well-intentioned but very misguided policies. But apparently that won't happen until Madame President Hillary Clinton is sworn into office in '08. By then it might be too late.

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Federal Budget, Social Security, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Movies, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration, Oil