Jump to content

Who's great in 2008


Recommended Posts

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

Your second, fourth and fifth points are all inter-related and tied to the first. There is no possible way you can attribute them to Presidential action. There is nothing a President can to to make these things happen directly. He/she simply doesn't have that sort of control over the economy, and more than he/she has control over the weather.

A President can take actions that will directly impede economic growth. He/she can also take actions that lay the groundwork for future economic growth. It is to Clinton's credit that he didn't screw with the economy enough to wreck it. His time was taken with screwing up other things.

Your third point point ties indirectly to the first, in that prosperity and criminal activity are inversely related. In any case, it's far more likely that American law enforcement's habit of throwing criminals in jail, taking them off of the streets, had more to do with a reduction in crime rates than anything Clinton did. Note too that he and Hillary were both concerned about high incarceration rates, as if there was no connection between putting offenders in jail and the reduction in the rates of offences.

Your sixth point is a good one. I have no complaint about paying down debt. As Alan Greenspan once said, (I paraphrase) paying down debt like putting money in the bank. It reduces your debt servicing charges and you can always borrow the money back again in the case of an emergency.

Your seventh point is flat wrong. Ronald Reagan ran up the biggest deficit in US history in 1987. Since there were five intervening, smaller deficits between 1987 and Clinton's first budget, it's not possible for Clinton to have gone from the largest deficit to the largest surplus. But I quibble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A winning candidate would be either [a] a known commodity like Hillary who's had dung flung at her by the masochists at Kos that didn't stick or a lower profile candidate like Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennesee) who's managed to stay clear of the internacine warfare that occupies most of the Kos crowd's time. In either case, the winning Democratic candidate has to have appeal among independants and soft Republicans. Hillary has been working on pushing her rhetoric to the right side of the Democratic spectrum. Bredesen already has cred among Bush supporting bloggers like Glenn Reynolds. Unfortunately for the Dems, I think that Wesley Clark has a better shot than Bredesen does at this point. Maybe a few more losing election cycles will clue them in to what needs to be changed.

Ever wonder why the people putting forward the idea that, to win, the Dems need to be more like Republicans are usually Republicans themselves? Hmmmm....

Just trying to help the hapless Democrats. You do realize that the US is a center-right country, don't you? If you think Howard Dean and his Deaniacs are the path to lead the Dems to the White House, then you must reside in the "reality-based community."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoop:

I find great humour in the Canadian Left's embracing of Bill Clinton. He ran a far more right-wing Government than anything Mulroney ever did, or Harper has done to date.

Don't forget that the Republican-controlled Congress kept Clinton in check. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have ran a much more leftist govt if not for that. Remember the massive tax hike early in his 1st term, before the Repubs took over Congress in 1994?

As for Clinton running a far more rightwing govt than anything Harper has done to date (I"m ignoring Mulroney who was not rightwing), I must disagree. Harper is lowering the GST and I am quite sure that he is going to cut more taxes (he is saving it for the next election). Harper cut off funding to the leader of the displaced Arabs in the Palestine region of the Mid East. The most visited leader to the White House during the Clinton presidency, was the renowned terrorist - Yassir Arafat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years.

Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper cut off funding to the leader of the displaced Arabs in the Palestine region of the Mid East.

I fail to see how this proves right wing bona fides. Giving money to the Palestinians was never a partisan issue. Despising Hamas as terrorists was likewise neither a left nor right wing position (at least as regards North American politics). It follows that cutting off funding after Hamas took power was possible from either wing's perspective, though I doubt the fence-arsed Libs would have had the stones to do it so quickly.

The most visited leader to the White House during the Clinton presidency, was the renowned terrorist - Yassir Arafat.

Which proves nothing about Clinton being a lefty. True, his predecessor Carter is a total leftist boob and has displayed an unseamly eagerness to embrace the world's more unsavory tyrants, but Clinton had a nobler goal in mind that was almost achieved at Camp David in 2000. Inviting Mr. Mangey-beard to the White House on a regular basis was part of the cost of achieving that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Condi vs Hillary in 2008....

Not a chance for Condi. She is very popular among Republicans for her policies and influence on Bush's brilliant foreign policy on the War on Terror. However, she has never run for any type of office and sorely lacks experience in this area. She'd probably make dumb rookie mistakes during the primaries. Also, she is pro-abortion (remember that voters in the Repub primaries are more conservative) and is a 50-something unmarried woman. The liberal MSM would likely start dropping "lesbian" hints. Sure, she would be subjected to the racist Aunt Jemima slurs so common by the "progressive" left, but the MSM would cover that up. She is possible as a VP but she insists she is not running.

Rudy Giuliani has many positives. He was very popular pre-9/11 as he cleaned up the crime that was so rampant in NYC during its rule by Democrat mayors. He has a tough-on-crime rep, performed well after 9-11, refused that $10 million check from that Saudi Prince who wanted him to blame 9-11 on the Jews, did good work for the Repubs in the 2004 election, and has charisma. However, he has many negatives. He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage. Remember that voters in the Repub primaries are more conservative than the general population. Plus, he is an adulterer. After the embarrassment of the Clinton presidency, I can't see Repubs voting him in, although the irony of the Dems attacking him as an adulterer would be delicious. A possible VP.

John McCain has no chance. He is despised by the base for his constant RINOism, and is a media hog who loves to be on all the talk shows basking in the glory of being a "maverick" - maverick for often slamming other Repubs, which is why the MSM loves him.

Jeb Bush? A good conservative who has done a good job, but too much Bush. 4 years of Sr and 8 years of Jr in the last 20 years. Plus with Bush acting like a liberal in his 2nd term and abandoning his base, Jeb has virtually no chance. Plus, like Condi, he insists he is not running.

Bill Frist is a solid conservative but hasn't been terribly effective as Senate Majority Leader and he lacks charisma. If he hasn't done an especially good job as SML, why would be get a promotion? Perhaps a dark horse...

Dick Cheney would be great, just to see liberal heads exploding. :D

I am going to stick with my original pick from a previous thread on this topic - George Allen. He is a solid conservative and I sense the base, after having a man as conservative as Reagan in office, and after all the victories Repubs have had at the ballot box (Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote in his 2 terms), that they deserve a true conservative candidate for President - someone to the right of GW Bush.

It's still early but perhaps an Allen (solid conservative)/Giuliani (moderate conservative) as VP ticket.

Now the Democrats. It is difficult to say because there appears to be a civil war in the party between the moderates and the moonbats who have hijacked the party.

Hillary Clinton has name recognition and excellent fund-raising ability. However she has many negatives. She is despised by Republicans and would motivate the Republican base, which at this time is decidedly not motivated due to Bush abandoning them on the immigration issue. She was part of quite possibly the most crooked administration in US history. She was behind the attempt to implement socialist healthcare in the US, the same socialist healthcare that has caused so much pain, suffering, and even death in Canada. She does not come across as warm or motherly like a Laura or Barbara Bush. She seems about as motherly as Nancy Reagan was. Her husband Bill, while having charisma, has all kinds of baggage--including Paula Jones passing a polygraph exam on Pax TV's Lie Detector show when she was asked if Slick Willie exposed himself to her in a hotel room while he was Governor. Another thing. Is the US ready for a female President? Plus this quote from June 2004 will come back to haunt her in capitalist America:

"Many of you are well enough off that the [bush] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The US does not have the same greedy entitled mindset of Europe, or even Canada for that matter (although I hope Harper can move this country away from that lazy mindset).

John Kerry has come out against the SBVFT the other day in a ridiculous puff piece by the NY Times a few days ago. But he has a big problem with the way he lied about US atrocities during the Winter Soldier hearings, he lied about Christmas in Cambodia, and is a notorious flip-flopper. Despite the MSM abandoning all pretense of pretending to be fair and balanced in the last election, doing everything they could to get him elected, he still failed. A dark horse.

Barack Obama? Liked by the MSM, but a critical look at his statements reveals him to be a socialist.

Evan Bayedh (sp?) or Mark Warner? Possible. Both are quite popular and somewhat moderate.

Wesley Clark? Unstable and almost caused WWIII in the Balkans. Loved by the moonbats in the "reality-based community" but has no chance with the general public.

Which brings me to...al-Gore? :o Has been all over the talk shows the last little while and the MSM has been fawning all over him. The reviews by the MSM for his propaganda film have mostly been glowing. It appears, at least in the last little while, that the MSM is packaging al-Gore as a viable candidate for 2008 - despite the fact that he seems to be getting more deranged every year.

It's too early to tell, plus there is a civil war going on in the Dem Party, but I would have to say it is between Hillary Clinton, al-Gore, Mark Warner and Evan Bayedh (sp?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years.

Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals?

Bush lowered taxes after Clinton had raised taxes (once early in his 1st term). After the Republicans took control of Congress (I am assuming you know how the US govt system works), they kept Clinton in check.

Do you think that if Congress was controlled by the Dems, that Clinton would have not signed Kyoto, or would not have raised taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that if Congress was controlled by the Dems, that Clinton would have not signed Kyoto, or would not have raised taxes?

If Congress had been controlled by the Dems Clinton would have given Kyoto more thought than he did. A Republican controlled Congress meant he could (and did) sign Kyoto knowing full well that Congress would never ratify it. He even went to far as to increase America's greenhouse reduction commitment from what had been initially required, so that he would personally look better on the world stage. Talking about a cynical bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper cut off funding to the leader of the displaced Arabs in the Palestine region of the Mid East.

I fail to see how this proves right wing bona fides. Giving money to the Palestinians was never a partisan issue. Despising Hamas as terrorists was likewise neither a left nor right wing position (at least as regards North American politics). It follows that cutting off funding after Hamas took power was possible from either wing's perspective, though I doubt the fence-arsed Libs would have had the stones to do it so quickly.

The most visited leader to the White House during the Clinton presidency, was the renowned terrorist - Yassir Arafat.

Which proves nothing about Clinton being a lefty. True, his predecessor Carter is a total leftist boob and has displayed an unseamly eagerness to embrace the world's more unsavory tyrants, but Clinton had a nobler goal in mind that was almost achieved at Camp David in 2000. Inviting Mr. Mangey-beard to the White House on a regular basis was part of the cost of achieving that goal.

1) Your point is somewhat correct. However I stand by my claim. Paul Martin attended a Tamil Tigers fund-raising dinner. Do you think Harper would do so? With them being slapped on the banned terrorist list, obviously not. I admit that sometimes the right has had to - for political purposes - take the side of unsavory groups or individuals, but I find this much more prevalent on the left. I doubt that Paul Martin would have cut off funding to the displaced Arabs just because they elected a terrorist group to lead them in their quest to destroy Israel. The left, in general, despises Israel - they are a democracy and the displaced Arabs are "poor people who need financial help" - not withstanding that the billions the displaced Arabs receive in aid goes towards weaponry.

2) I disagree. The left almost always take the word of scumbag dictators. Look at the excuses they make for the USSR, the fawning over Castro, Chavez, and their attempt to stop Papa Hussein from being overthrown despite him ignoring every single Chapter VII (binding) UN resolution, ignoring the ceasefire he signed; promoting int'l terrorism, repeatedly shooting at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, and his attempt to assassinate a US president.

Now they are worried that the US, or Israel, might bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Why?

They almost always take the word of dictators over the word of the leaders of democratic nations. Remember the left's mindset: Everyone is the same. Everyone is morally the same (except for conservatives and religious people).

There is no political advantage for the US or Canada to take the side (the enemy of my enemy is my friend--for a short while) - of Chavez, Hamas, or Iran's leader (whose name I cannot spell :ph34r: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) I disagree. The left almost always take the word of scumbag dictators. Look at the excuses they make for the USSR, the fawning over Castro, Chavez, and their attempt to stop Papa Hussein from being overthrown despite him ignoring every single Chapter VII (binding) UN resolution, ignoring the ceasefire he signed; promoting int'l terrorism, repeatedly shooting at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, and his attempt to assassinate a US president.

Now they are worried that the US, or Israel, might bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Why?

They almost always take the word of dictators over the word of the leaders of democratic nations. Remember the left's mindset: Everyone is the same. Everyone is morally the same (except for conservatives and religious people).

There is no political advantage for the US or Canada to take the side (the enemy of my enemy is my friend--for a short while) - of Chavez, Hamas, or Iran's leader (whose name I cannot spell :ph34r: )

Ah ma dine jhad.

Without taking it as given that Clinton is in fact a left-winger, what does any of this have to do with proving Clinton is a lefty? What does any of this have to do with refuting my assertion that Arafat was brought to the White House for reasons other than Carteresque bootlicking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years.

Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals?

Bush lowered taxes after Clinton had raised taxes (once early in his 1st term). After the Republicans took control of Congress (I am assuming you know how the US govt system works), they kept Clinton in check.

Do you think that if Congress was controlled by the Dems, that Clinton would have not signed Kyoto, or would not have raised taxes?

I'm not arguing that the republican congress didn't keep Clinton in check. My point was that you said "Clinton rode along for the ride..." and implied that the economy was only strong under Clinton because of the previous Reagan administration. So maybe if the economy is strong under Harper we can thank the liberals, according to your logic.

P.S. Reagan and Bush may have cut taxes, but they did so at the expense of the debt, which will hurt in the long run. And you said that the debt rose every year Clinton was in power, but Reagan and Bush added way more debt than Clinton.

Also, the decrease in crime in the U.S. started while Clinton was in power, so again according to your logic he is responsible for that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
I am going to stick with my original pick from a previous thread on this topic - George Allen. He is a solid conservative and I sense the base, after having a man as conservative as Reagan in office, and after all the victories Repubs have had at the ballot box (Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote in his 2 terms), that they deserve a true conservative candidate for President - someone to the right of GW Bush.

george Allen's America

"MY FRIENDS, we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas," Sen. George F. Allen told a rally of Republican supporters in Southwest Virginia last week. "And it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something." Whereupon Mr. Allen turned his attention to a young campaign aide working for his Democratic opponent -- a University of Virginia student from Fairfax County who was apparently the only person of color present -- and proceeded to ridicule him.

Dear GOP: please select this man to be your candidate 2008. Thanks.

-the Democratic Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My record is the same on all issues, which is that of a conservative Republican. Not a liberal Republican, not a moderate Republican."- John McCain in the Wasshington Post, May 3, 2006

Wooo! Some maverick. :rolleyes:

I know what he saying here. But many Republicans don't believe he toes the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he doesn't. Anyone who follows politics knows this. I hope he runs in '08, and I hope he wins. McCain/Giuliani 2008 = unbeatable.

I had no idea McCain was so old (he'll be 72 in November '08, three years older than Reagan was when he was first elected). That's a strike against him. Of course his reputation as a "maverick" (deserved or not) could work against him even among Republicans (though this time the people who slandered him and his family during the 200 primaries could be working for him), while Guiliani (the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights Northeasterner) would be anathema to the GOP base. hat's not a horrible slate, mind you (especially compared to the current regime), but I wonder if the republican strategy of promoting extremism in order to cast diehard conservatives as centerists won't backfire. In such an environment, even conservative centerists end up looking lke crazed liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to stick with my original pick from a previous thread on this topic - George Allen. He is a solid conservative and I sense the base, after having a man as conservative as Reagan in office, and after all the victories Repubs have had at the ballot box (Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote in his 2 terms), that they deserve a true conservative candidate for President - someone to the right of GW Bush.

george Allen's America

"MY FRIENDS, we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas," Sen. George F. Allen told a rally of Republican supporters in Southwest Virginia last week. "And it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something." Whereupon Mr. Allen turned his attention to a young campaign aide working for his Democratic opponent -- a University of Virginia student from Fairfax County who was apparently the only person of color present -- and proceeded to ridicule him.

Dear GOP: please select this man to be your candidate 2008. Thanks.

-the Democratic Party

An apology from Allen today, two weeks later.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/...in1931999.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...