"I have done ok the last 8 years too. I think I earned it. For you I guess it is more comforting to think Clinton did it for you"
Oh, I earned the money I made over the last 8 years - but the strong economy, for which Clinton deserves some (I never said all) credit contributed greatly to my personal success, and that of my conservative friends, who lost millions during Bush Sr.'s recession years. And why does Clinton deserve some of the credit? Because (i) he took Greenspan's advice about enacting credible deficit reduction seriously, and pushed through the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which triggered lower interest rates, recovery of the capital markets, a sustained economic boom and an end to 12 years of deficit spending -- thus helping the private sector flourish instead of cutting it down at the knees, like Reaganomics did for all but a few defense contractors, (ii) he appointed Robert Rubin, (iii) he pushed NAFTA and other free trade agreements that spurred economic growth even at the expense of alienating his own constituency (labor), and (iv) he and Al Gore used the federal government to promote and subsidize technological innovation through targeted tax subsidies, federal procurement, trade agreements and other means. To hear the GOP talk about it, Clinton was accidently there when all these things happened, rode an economic boom that he had nothing to do with, and that all democrats live off the government. For my part, I employ 15 people, and do legal work for real estate developers and others who employ hundreds more. and don't kid yourself, Reaganomics practically dug this country into a trench that it could not pull itself out of -- the national economy, and the effect of government fiscal and tax policy on that economy, is critical to how well the private sector does.
"What specifically did GWB do that you find so offensive?" Apart from using personal attacks throughout the campaign, I found his use of James Baker to implement scorched earth legal tactics to shut down manual recounts that were entirely legal and proper under Florida law, and necessary in the peculiar facts surrounding this election, and then using Jeb's allies in the Florida state government's election machine (Katherine Harris in particular) to abuse their positions to shut down legal recounts (actions that were found by a unanimous FSC to have been improper), and then acting like he was above the fray by hanging out at the ranch in Texas while his operatives used the most aggressive tactics imaginable (including using paid GOP operatives to act as demonstrators to disrupt the recount process, which is a violation of the voting rights of the citizens of Dade County) was offensive. And it has left an indelible mark on the political consciousness of America.
"Aschroft was appointed, not elected. See Government 101 text book." Yeah, but I was talking about the guy who appinted him, Dubya . . . who was elected . . . well, actually he was appointed, too, but he wants us all to believe he was elected. But my point is that, even if you assume Bush was elected, he was not elected to appoint right wing extremists to the most sensitive positions where ideology makes a difference. And the notion that an AG merely "enforces the law" is a complete crock. Putting aside the broad discretion that an AG has (to take certain cases, to prosecute aggressively or passively (or not at all), to establish the government's legal positions on a wide range of issues, to weigh in on lifetime federal judicial appointments, and so forth), it is a gross oversimplification to say he merely needs to be willing to "enforce the law" and that his ideology doesn't matter. The AG may not be a "social worker" but he does not have to be an "anti-social worker" either. Ashcroft's political philosphy is so far from the mainstream that it is a poke in the eye of the electorate for Bush to have appointed him. In other words, my gripe is as much with Dubya as it is with Ashcroft himself. Of course, Ashcroft's lies during the confirmation hearings (regarding Ronnie White and Hormel) do not exactly inspire confidence regarding his ability to enforce the laws either. That he was confirmed over the no votes of 42 senators (so much for Trent Lott's 70 votes) tells you that many many people see it the same way.
As for dems voting against Ashcroft for ideological reasons, well, it was pure ideology when the republicans voted not to confirm Bill Lan Lee as Assistant AG (because they differed with him on affirmative action) and when they trashed Lani Guinere. While it is even more appropriate to consider the ideology of an appointee when you are talking about a lifetime appointment (like Clarence Thomas or Ronnie White), and you can bet that a judicial nominee who is hard right as Ashcroft will never be confirmed in this political atmosphere, the simple fact is that the constitution provides for "advise and consent" on cabinet positions, NOT "advise and rubber stamp".
Two final points - First, it was Bush who ran to the center, calling himself a compassionate conservative, and blurring the distinctions between him and Gore on policy issues while attacking Gore personally. It turns out he was not leveling with the American people. Suprise, surprise. Second, no way Bush gets to be Prez for 8 years. This administration has "one term" written all over it. |
