This is for the Republicans

[metta 0]

Why do Republican hate Bill?

During the '90s when conservatism was the "Zietgeist", and Limbaugh's dittoheads ruled America, Clinton very adroitly moved the dems to the middle with his: "the era of big government is over" speech. with that he outmanuevered the Republicans and became the first democratic prez since FDR to win a second term. The dittoheads never forgave him for taking the wind out of their sail.

And guess what, he cut spending and left a hugh surplus that the compasssionate conservative squandered on his compassionate crusade in Iraq.

By the same token, the liberals hated him for moving to the center and abandoning the traditional hardcore liberal policies.

That's why that egomaniac Nader declared that there was not a nickle's worth of deifference between the Republicans and Clinton/Gore administration. Obviously, he never seemed to have grasped what a nickle was worth. BTW, that big time Nader backer Susan Sarandon is now behind that NY Feminist endorsement for Obama.

source

I Remind Me of Reagan

TOOLBOX

Resize Text

Save/Share + Digg.Newsvinedel.icio.us.Stumble It!RedditFacebook Print This E-mail This if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & TOOLBOX_LEFT_180X31 ) == TOOLBOX_LEFT_180X31 ) { placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,28,'',true) ; }

COMMENT

washingtonpost.com readers have posted 183 comments about this item.

View All Comments »

if( COMMENTS_ACTIVE) { document.write('POST A COMMENT

'); document.write( getDisplayUserName()+'

') } Comments are closed for this item. Discussion Policy Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who's Blogging

» Links to this article By Michael Kinsley Friday, February 1, 2008; 12:00 AM

In the past few weeks, the Democratic Party has suddenly turned on Bill Clinton with the ferocity of 16 years of pent-up resentments. He will not be cut any more slack, and neither will his wife. Meanwhile, the Republican primaries have turned into a Ronald Reagan Adoration Contest. Neither ex-president deserves what he is getting. Clinton is a victim of long memories, Reagan is a beneficiary of short ones.

In the Republican debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain repeated his story about how he and other prisoners of war used to discuss this exciting new governor of California using tap codes through the walls of a North Vietnamese prison. Like many of the great man's own treasured anecdotes, it might be true. Unlike Reagan, McCain is a genuine war hero, so if he has overpolished this story a bit (it comes out almost word-for-word each time), he is honoring the great man by imitation if nothing else. In the debate, McCain repeatedly called himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." He declared that Republicans have "betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending."

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, kept repeating, inanely, "We're in the house that Reagan built." Reagan "would say lower taxes" and "Reagan would say lower spending." Reagan "would say no way" to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Reagan would never "walk out of Iraq." And, by the way, McCain's accusation that Romney harbors a secret timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is "the kind of dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found to be reprehensible."

A problem: Reagan actually signed the law that authorized the last amnesty, back in 1986. Romney deals with this small difficulty by declaring: "Reagan saw it. It didn't work." He offers no evidence that Reagan had a change of heart about amnesty, and learning from experience was not something Reagan was known for. The proper cliché is McCain's: "Ronald Reagan came with an unshakeable set of principles." And -- pointedly -- "Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is."

All of this is what Democrats these days refer to as "a fairy tale."

There is no evidence that Reagan was bothered by the rough and tumble of political campaigns. Mischaracterization of an opponent didn't even qualify as a "dirty trick" to Reagan, due to his fantastic ability to believe anything helpful. Compare Romney's whining about how McCain didn't give him enough time to respond to the Iraq timetable accusation with Reagan's masterful "There you go again" against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Would Reagan "walk out of" Iraq? Far from clear. He scurried out of Lebanon fast enough after things got hot there in 1984. During the Reagan years the United States was actually pro-Iraq in its war against Iran, although we also sold weapons to Iran in order to raise money for a terrorist war we were secretly financing in Nicaragua, while denouncing terrorism. It's hard to find any "unshakeable set of principles" in this mess.

McCain declared in Wednesday's debate that he would appoint Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- that is, reliable conservatives. Romney characteristically upped the ante: "I would apppove ... justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas."

Roberts and Alito were appointed by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas was appointed by his father. Reagan did appoint Antonin Scalia, but he also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, an unbending pragmatist who postponed the conservative revolution in constitutional law for a generation.

But the biggest fairy tale about Reagan is the most central one: about taxes and spending. It is one thing to sit in a North Vietnamese prison in the early 1970s, dreaming of a California governor who one day will balance the federal budget. It is another to imagine that it actually happened. When Reagan took office in 1981, federal receipts (taxes) were $517 billion and outlays (spending) were $591 billion for a deficit of $73 billion. When he left office in 1989, taxes were $999 billion and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $153 billion. As a share of the economy (the fairest measure), Reagan did cut taxes, from 19.6 percent to 18.4 percent, and he cut spending from 22.2 to 21.2 percent, increasing the deficit from 2.6 percent to 2.8 percent. The deficit went as high as an incredible five percent of GDP during Reagan's term. As a result, the national debt soared by almost two thirds.

You can fiddle with these numbers -- assuming that it takes another year or two for a president's policies to take effect, or taking defense costs out of your calculation, and the basic result is the same or worse. Whatever, these numbers hardly constitute a "revolution."

John McCain's stagy self-flagellation, on behalf of all Republicans, for betraying the Reagan Revolution when they controlled Congress and the White House at the beginning of this decade, is entirely misplaced. In fact, President Bush and the Republican Congress did precisely what Reagan did: they cut taxes, mainly on the well-to-do, but they barely touched spending.

If the Republicans are looking around for an icon to worship, they might consider Bill Clinton. He cut spending from 21.4 percent of GDP to 18.5 percent. That's three times as much as Reagan. True, he raised taxes from 17.6 percent to 19.8 percent, but that's still a smaller chunk than the government was claiming when Reagan left office. And, of course, he left us with an annual surplus that threatened to eliminate the national debt.

What's more, I think he's available.

The writer is a columnist for Time magazine and regular contributor to washingtonpost.com.

[Jasman0717 9]

I am a Republican and I don't hate Bill. I made a lot of money in my 401k and deferred comp while he was in office but have giving a little back with our current pres