Since Clinton shrank the government, and balanced the budget, why didn't conservatives ever give him a chance, prior to his perjury?
2007-10-10 17:09:01 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
BB (below) This should help you:
The wittle bitty duck goes quack. Why do people who like quack no listen?
2007-10-10 17:19:09 · update #1
ruth (below) In other words, the worst evil in the universe would be preferred to ever supporting a member of the other party. This is the problem that never ends.
2007-10-10 17:21:48 · update #2
Bush still has that "R" behind his name(Republican). The people that support him would rather support any "R", no matter how bad they are, then to support a "D" or Liberal, no matter how good they are. It's party before country.
2007-10-10 17:23:11 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are right Bush is no where close to a conservative which raises the question why dont liberals give him a chance? I dont see clinton anywhere near a conservative, besides Pat Buchanan was running during the clinton era how could I vote for anyone else?
2007-10-11 00:15:59 · answer #2 · answered by Goldwater Conservative 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The inherent problem of political parties. Clinton was in the party associated with the liberals so no conservatives would give him a far shake. Likewise with Bush.
2007-10-11 00:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by Phil K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure whether you want a defense of Bush or an attack on Clinton, or both.
That Clinton budget had more to do with Newt's Congress, but I would debate whether the actions which brought it about were actually beneficial to the US in the long haul...
I still cringe thinking of Kerry, Chi. No amount of Bush-bashing changes that for me.
2007-10-11 00:16:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Fiscally, when it comes to trade, W is not conservative at all. The man has put the US in so much debt, it is likely we will never climb out of the hole. Socially, he is pretty conservative. I don't see where a lot of his policies are much different from classic conservatives, insofar as they believe social spending is an unmitigated evil.
2007-10-11 00:20:59 · answer #5 · answered by Pull My Finger 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with "truth seeker" it is party over country in most cases. It is also the philosophy of the lesser of two evils. My candidate is bad but the other sides candidate is worse. This is killing our country. Unless we can get back to a moral principled population we are finished as a country.
2007-10-11 00:55:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing clinton did for the economy was have the good fortine of being in office buring the tech boom.
My problem with clinton was his cowardly approach to dealing with our enemies.
2007-10-11 00:12:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I support Bush because he's still our President. No matter what mistakes he has made or what you may want to call him --- he hasn't been impeached or convicted of war crimes.
He's still our President, my president.
You don't have to like him, but you could at least respect his position as the leader of our country.
2007-10-11 00:25:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I certainly disapprove of his granting every penny congress (Reps and Dems) asked for
2007-10-11 00:22:22 · answer #9 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because all neocons claim to be conservatives. I actually think they believe they are just because they get an NRA newsletter.
2007-10-11 01:54:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋