As for a National Party, Is GWB the Republican's Bill Clinton?

[HardWorkingDem]

First, a caveat. I really like Bill Clinton, but believe he is an ego centric person and put a lot of his politics before that of the Dem party's.

Jokingly, I tell friends that I think GWB is the to the Republican Party as what Bill Clinton was to the Democratic Party.

That they have actually hurt their Parties but excelled in individual ways.

Thoughts?

[Deja Q]

1. Bill Clinton was the best president republicans ever had.

But I don't see how * has helped the Dems. Especially as the dems, more often than not, seem to go along with * and say "we too!"

[HardWorkingDem]

4. What I mean is...

that both may have hurt their respective party rather than strengthen or help them.

Though I think one area Bush has done remarkably well is that of improving the financial standing of his crony friends like none other.

[Pepperbelly]

10. such crap ...

repetition does not make it any truer. It is a cutsie throw-away phrase that is both baseless and dangerous.

[AJH032]

21. If Bill Clinton was Republican, then I am too

because I find myself in agreement with almost everything he did (other than NAFTA), and he was the one who attracted me to this party.

[Ready4Change]

2. Well, they are both to the Right of their respective parties.

Clinton being more Moderate, Bush being more Extremist.

[Kipling]

7. I disagree.

If you think Bush is as bad as it gets, you could get some nasty shocks. On a scale of right to left, where left is 1 and right is 10, Clinton is a 5 or 6, and Bush is a 7. He's roughly in the middle of the Republican spectrum. A really extreme right-winger would have scrapped benifits and Medicaid entirely, introduced harsh quotas on immigration, introduce the death penalty for a wider range of crimes, greatly relax gun laws, repeal hate-crime and anti-discrimination measures, and launch nuclear assaults on Iran and North Korea.

[Demit]

9. You don't think those things aren't on Chimpy's to-do list?

[Kipling]

11. No. He's too concerned with staying in power to help the corporations.

The chances of him taking an ideological far-right stand are slim. Cheney and Co aren't greatly bothered about crime or immigration, they just want money, so he needs to keep to acceptable political territory.

[Demit]

12. And how is the best way to get money for free?

By transferring it from the masses, to their buddy corporations, through government action. This administration has already begun "scrapping benefits" by changing laws on overtime pay. They're failing to privatize Social Security, but not because they haven't tried. And Medicaid? They're working on that, trying to get Federal control over states' Medicaid budgets.

They're already making nuclear-assault noises on Iran (they've stretched themselves too thin to be able to effectively bully North Korea. You know they've backed away from that). In re your other law-and-order points, they've already made a start with their unyielding Federal minimum sentencing guidelines. And why would they want to curtail immigration? Immigration helps drive down wages further. More money in corporations' pockets, more kickbacks for them... And the wheel keeps turning.

I'm really puzzled by your statement that Bush is too concerned with staying in power to help corporations. He's been doing nothing but. He might not be an ideological right-winger--who really knows the truth of what is in his head, and what he just finds it expedient to espouse?--but that doesn't make him any less extreme.

[Kipling]

16. You misunderstood that sentance.

He's too concerned with staying in power IN ORDER to help the corporations to go out on a limb about more ideological rightist issues. Immigration is an excellent example. Ideological right wingers aren't happy about it, but the corporations are because it's cheap, non-unionised labour.

[BL611]

17. Clinton is a 6, and Bush is a 7????????

I wouldn't even know where to begin.....

[Neil Lisst]

3. Bill Clinton was a GOD!! bow your heads!

Seriously, he was a great president for so many reasons. Politicians are held to hopeless standards these days. He was a great politician, a great world leader, and he was and is truly respected in the world.

Bush is like some mini-me version to the world.

-----
my progressive political cartoon
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[Lasher]

5. Dubya is no centrist

And he sure ain't no Bill Clinton.

[Totally Committed]

6. He's their Richard Nixon, without the brains...

Clinton was not a disastrous President. I am not fond of some of legislation passed in his administration, but you can't tell me he would have left people to die in NO the way Shrubber did. I will never believe that. And, you can't tell me we'd be fighting this war in Iraq, either. The environment would be safer, the economy would sure as hell be in better shape, and there would still be a semblence of seperation of Church and State.

NO, Shrubber is the head of the most corrupt, shameful, and Fascist government this country has ever seen. But, that's just my opinion.

[Mr Rabble]

20. As usual, your opinion is accurate, IMO.

[meti57b]

8. Bush is a paranoid maniac with delusions of grandeur.

No possible comparison with Clinton.

[HardWorkingDem]

13. People.....what I meant was....

it is my opinion that a president should make his or her party stronger or build on that strength and certainly try to leave office with a stronger and more effective party than when heading into office.

With this, I believe, Bill Clinton left office without building strength in the Dem party at all. Frankly, he weakened the party. He did little to build our strength and seemed to have little energy to do so.

To me, Bush is doing the same thing to his own party.

Clinton seemed to lose this path out of ego centric politics, while Bush is blowing it on cronyism and his own incompetence.

[BL611]

19. Was the Democratic party strong before '92?

I don't think you can put the blame at Clinton's feet, certainly the Lewinsky thing damaged the dems with some "values" voters, but the Republican ascendancy has been in motion in this country for the last 30 years for reasons that have nothing to do with Clinton. If anything, he helped slow it down. Now if with Bush the right has finally overreached and started the same type of backlash that the new left did to the dems in the 70's, only time will tell.....

[tritsofme]

14. As of today that comparison is not valid.

Bush has brought the Republican Party more success and power than they have seen since the 1920s, both at the state and federal level.

Clinton lost the House to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years, and despite his personal success left a Democratic Party that was more out of power than ever before.

The 2006 and 2008 elections will start give us some perspective on Bush's legacy as it pertains to the Republican Party, but right now he has been a success in obtaining power for himself and his party.

[Bucky]

15. "Excelled"? Bush? He's excelled at scamming people only.

Sorry. For all his ego and womanizing, Clinton turned out to be an adept manager and a cautious steward of the public trust. He did his job. Bush's popularity is falling because people have burned out on the nonstop cronyism, disingenuous line-blurring in the war against terrorists, the corruption, and the incompetance. His quicky speech on the terror threat (that he brought to Iraq) and probably exaggerated claims of having stopped actual al-Qaeda plots won't reverse it.

We're seeing the famous Lincoln formula in action here. You can't fool all the people all the time.

[jackthesprat]

18. Bush is a Spokes-Model for the Republican Party.

I don't believe he is even a real person.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. No. n/t