John,
Your response in essence answered part of my question which I will restate in (borrowed) poetical form:
Breathes there a man (a Democrat, that is)
With soul so dead
Who never to himself has said
These actions in South Florida
By Bill Daley and his cronies
Are just plain wrong?
Obviously, uncomfortable with the election question, you chose to go off on a tiresome tirade containing most of the old canards and some of the Gore speaking points from Debate #3.
As for the economy and stock market doing better, traditionally under the Democrats, one has to keep in mind that we often have alternating parties in control of the Executive Branch, and the party coming in generally inherits the benefits, and the detriments, of the work of the one before. In 1969 the Republicans inherited not only the domestic turmoil of the country but also LBJ's Vietnam frolic, financed through future inflation and recession (stagflation) that left RMN floundering in his attempts to deal with an irresponsible government who had spent the next generation's money on war materiel and lives in a hopeless ground war. Who can forget the days of Phase I, and Phase II? Or Gerald Ford's Whip Inflation Now buttons? Thank you, LBJ, you irresponsible buffoon.
In 1980, RR inherited the gravity defying stock market and economy of Jimmy Carter (Interest rates at 20%!!), the national malaise and, oh yes, who can forget, the MEOW (the moral equivalent of war--wasn't that turning your thermostat down to 52 degrees, wearing a sweater and drinking hot tea?). There have been 3 great presidents in the 20th century, imvvho, TR, FDR and RR. There have been 2 totally inept presidents, Hoover and Carter. There have been 3 totally corrupt presidents: Warren Harding, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Of these last three it is probable that Nixon was the most flawed, but Clinton makes it close to a dead heat.
As for what a true Republican program would do, since we haven't had a Republican president, Senate and Congress since 1952, we don't really know, do we?
Despite what the propagandists write, Clinton inherited a great economy in 1993, one which was coming strongly out of recession and poised to do well no matter who was at the controls (assuming we believe that the President is, in some way, at the controls). To his credit (jointly shared with a Republican Congress which controlled his worst ideas), the Clinton/Gore regime, for all its moral turpitude, or perhaps because of it, saw fit to let Greenspan and Rubin guide the economic ship of state well.
This is neither the place nor the time to debate whether or not the toppling of the Soviet Empire, through peaceable means, the reduction of tax rates from over 50% to our current system and the subsequent explosion of enterprise, wealth (yes, that's a dirty word, John) and jobs was worth the cost, but the election map in 1984 was a pretty clear indication of the nation's vote of confidence.
I'm glad you credit Clinton (and that guy who invented the Internet) with paying down the national debt. I'm sure that will be news to all the wealthy who, under a fairer tax regime, have been more than willing to shoulder more than their fair share of taxes for the last 20 years. Actually, the Republican Congress had an awful lot to do with keeping Clinton on the reservation (National Hillary Health?? Excuuuuuuuuuuse me!) in terms of economic policy.
However, not all is right with the world as we speak, and W, if he is the next president, will have to deal with the hangover of the current overextension of the economy and the current severe debt binge. He will be well advised to take the economic medicine early, even if it is a recession in his first term. It may be his only term in office. And when the bad economic times roll in due to the infamous Y2K liquidity infusion and the tech bubble, it is certain there will be people like you, John, who pop up and say, "See what I'm saying about the Republicans and the economy?"
As for the Democrats, first off they should be required to change their name, as they do not really believe in democracy. They prefer to have appointed officials (judges, mostly) go beyond their constitutional role (to interpret laws) and actually write new laws based on their personal feelings. This is the activist judiciary, as we know it. Democracy is about trusting the people to govern themselves, through their representatives. It may not be the prettiest form of government, and certainly it can take a legislature a long time to come to the "right" set of laws on any number of areas, but the way we know they are, finally, the "right" set of laws, is that they are the product of self government. |
