Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Rick Buford wrote:

> First of all, when Clinton took office, he inherited a growing economy. 
> When Bush part deus took office, he inherited not only a sinking 
> economy, but then had to contend with 9/11 which sunk American 
> confidence right into the toilet.

I will agree that there is some truth in that (at least the part about 
Bush having extra problems to deal with).  The thing is, there is no end 
to this kind of blame game.  Every President with poor economic indices 
wants to blame the guy before him.  I really don't know when that is valid 
and when it's an excuse.


> We've heard the pro-Clinton side, but here's a pro-Bush page: 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp
> Is any of that information incorrect?

Maybe.  How would I know?  I'll give you a few reasons to be skeptical 
about it.  First, the article was a "guest commentary," not written by one 
of the National Review's usual writers, but it was written by a man who 
claims to be "the chairman of Economists for Bush."  So he certainly has 
an agenda here -- he isn't trying to tell us the truth, he's trying to 
sway our votes.  The second thing is that my biggest concern about Bush's 
economic policcy revolves around the debt/deficit, and I am far from alone 
on that, but the terms 'deficit' and 'debt' do not even appear in the 
article.  I don't think an objective analysis of our economic situation 
and Bush's economic policies can ignore the deficit.  So I don't think 
this guy is making sense.


> You appear to hold up Clinton as some sort of paragon of presidency, yet 
> when the very real specter of his sexual misconduct is brought up, you 
> have need to compare it to other presidential transgressions. But, since 
> you've already pretty much stated that you accept and/or approve of 
> Bill's "non-lying" under oath, addressing it really isn't necessary.

I don't want to rehash this in detail.  Suffice it to say that if Bush was 
caught in a lie about something unimportant like whether he had sex with 
some woman or man, or whether he used to smoke weed or snort coke, I would 
not care at all.  He'd be a fool not to lie about that sort of thing.  It 
doesn't matter that he used to snort coke and smoke weed - I don't care. 
If Clinton had hired men to commit criminal acts to help him to win an 
election, I would care about that and I would condemn him for it just as I 
condemned Nixon.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion