Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: carranza2 who wrote (51153)	6/21/2004 10:28:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 793950

I think that the Fred Barnes piece on the issue posted by Gina V. was quite on the mark. I agree. His final statement said it all: "Clinton was a president of little consequence." But that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him. You can't get everything you want in a president, at least I can't given that I don't fall neatly on the liberal/conservative continuum. So I vote for the most moderate among the candidates. Failing that I vote for gridlock. Clinton meets my criteria on both counts. Given his psychological difficulties, I am very pleased that he was not at the helm when a history-changing event took place that might have required him to use skill and judgment in a way he had never used them before. His flaws are personal flaws. I don't mean to discount them--they aren't trivial--but they didn't show up in his policy determinations. Barnes's point about carrying on the Reagan initiatives was right on. Republicans couldn't have had a better ally. No good turn goes unpunished, it seems.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next