Bill Clinton Debates a Fire Hydrant, err … I mean George W. Bush
How much would you pay to watch former president George W. Bush and Bill Clinton take the stage in an “uncensored, unedited and unpredictable” debate?
How about $1,250?
If I had it, I’d spend it. However, I’ll wait for the youtube vidoes.
Bill Clinton debating GWB? That’s like John Locke debating Paris Hilton over issues of epistemology …
Bush 43 And Bill Clinton To Face Off In ‘Uncensored’ Debate | TPM LiveWire
Like this Post? EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS!!
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
People are having fun with this because they are just so sure that Clinton is smarter than Bush. I’m not so sure about that. What would Clinton have done in response to 9/11? Perhaps go talk to the Taliban? He had at least one good opportunity to get Bin Laden and blew that. All of the heavy lifting for planning of the 9/11 attacks was done on Clinton’s watch. There were terror attack after terror attack with only feeble action in response. And then there is the economy. Clinton did well during the dot com bubble, but was in trouble after it burst. Bush had a full on disaster right at the start of his term — and pulled things out. We hit a recession towards the end of his term, but that was more the fault of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd than Bush. Hmmmmm.……
[Reply]
Christopher Skyi Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
All true. However, what can’t be forgotten is the severe damage done to the conservative movement by Bush and the neocons. Forget about Iraq for a moment and look at Bush’s prescription drug bill for seniors that’s gone a long towards moving us down the road to socialized medicine. Or look at his massive expansion of government programs and spending that had little if anything to do with 911, it and set the stage for the even crazier Democrats to drive the debt even higher. Did Bush care about the fiscal conservative heritage passed down from William Buckley, Goldwater, and Regan? No he did not — see:
Bashing Obama, but Neo-Conservative GOP-ers & Bush Still Sucks More
Bill Clinton was and is a lefty liberal, but the guy at least tried to be true and faithful to his party and it’s principles. Bush — he was a political traitor.
[Reply]
Bob B Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 6:01 am
I agree that Bush was not really a “conservative” — he was a moderate in many respects — and I didn’t like what he did with spending, as you pointed out. Like FDR, if you take away the wartime leadership, there’s more harm than good. FDR did terrible damage to our society, but was probably the right person for the job at least at the beginning of WW2. Same thing for Bush. My comments really had to do with these comparisons of Clinton and Bush, with the assumption that Clinton is a genius and Bush is an idiot. And by the way, where were you during the Clinton administration? Clinton was not a liberal. He was a moderate — in many respects very similar to Bush as far as real domestic actions go. He had the same failings as Bush domestically, but couldn’t get the national defense stuff right either — which makes him a worse president that Bush in my mind.
I would rather have either Clinton or Bush in power than our current president, though. Obama is what I would classify as a Marxist — the American people are beginning to realize this, and they will savage him when he runs for re-election. The question is really how much damage this guy will do before we get him out of office.
[Reply]