WASHINGTON - If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.
I doubt that this is a positive thing for HRC, all things considered. As the campaign progresses every bimbo, every questionable pardon and every other peccadillo of the Clinton years will saturate every media outlet. This may have happened anyway, but now with Bill in the mix no one can cry foul, but they will anyway.
5 comments:
Or they will point out his budget surplus and succes in reducing a Republican inhereited deficit...
P.S. SO how are those Google ads paying off so far? Perhaps some links to porn would be more lucrative.
Somehow you always seem to forget that those surpluses had something to do with a GOP Congress and that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Add to that the effects of 9/11 and the worst natural disaster we've ever had...
IMO Bush HAS dropped the ball on the spending side of the fiscal ledger. Even so, any fair-minded person would aknowledge there are a lot of other factors to consider.
By comparison, Clinton had it easy. Newt held the line on spending and Greenspan kept a steady hand on the tiller. All Bubba had to to was keep Monica on speed dial.
Where was that supposed spendthrift Congress pre-9/11? and since then they have used the war on terror to justify the most egregious use of pork spending that would even embarrass Robert Byrd. How many billions disappeared in Iraq? etc...etc... etc... etc... Perhaps Google Ad's on governmental web sites will help.
Dexter is almost right, the current admin. has been spendy. But I'd take spendy and steadfast over very spendy and flippidy floppidy anytime.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say they used the War on Terror to justify pork barrel spending. Maybe increased ethanol subsidies would fall under that heading... And some of the budget items related to the Dept of Homeland Security would as well. But establishing a new cabinet level department and dramatically expanding it's role was going to cost money. There was just no way around that. And recent Democratic criticism of Homeland Security was they didn't ask for enough money. So that doesn't really make your argument either.
Aside from the war, the big, monstrous budget busting was done with the highway bill, the farm bill, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and spending related to Katrina. I don't remember any gasbaggery advancing these issues that used the War on Terror as some kind of crutch.
And what about the pre-9/11 Congress? You're talking about the first 8 months of Bush's term. Except for the education bill the Bush admin negotiated with Kennedy, not a whole lot happened. Of course back then, the Senate was controlled by the Dems so that's hardly surprising.
I don't know how many billions disappeared in Iraq. I don't even know if it was billions or just millions and of course, neither do you. I suppose "billions" sounds better when you don't really care about the issue but just want to make an accusation. There have been some abuses and prosecutions have resulted. I expect more will come and I'm perfectly okay with that.
"etc...etc... etc... etc..." What the hell does THAT mean?
Again, I concede the Bush admin did drop the ball on spending. But to be perfectly honest, in the abstract I don't really care about deficits. We're at war. Deficits in and of themselves aren't the issue. I just don't want them spending money on crap which is what the farm bill and the highway bill amount to. And whether I like it or not, one of his campaign promises way back in 2000 was to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And he did. It's kind of hard to damn Bush for doing exactly what he said he'd do. Besides, on that issue the Dems are even worse.
Post a Comment