[Dorrin79]

As an aside to the current "Libertarians" thread (here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40221)

I was talking with a Democratic coworker about how there's not much, if any, practical difference between his party and the Republicans. He of course said there were many differences.

As a thought experiment, I asked him the following: Name me 3 major differences between actions taken by the Clinton Administration and actions taken by the Bush Administration.

I'm not looking for "Bush is a god-fearing American and Clinton is the Devil" rhetoric here. I'm wondering if there is anything either Administration actually DID, as opposed to just talked about, that the other didn't do/wouldn't have done.

Some thoughts:

- Both showed a willingness to embark on foreign adventures. One can legitimately argue that Bush's adventures have been justified while Clinton's were not, but practically speaking I find it likely that Bush would have bombed Kosovo and Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan, at the very least.

- Both have been massive supporters of corporate welfare and farm subsidies.

- Both supported the idiotic War on Drugs, and pushed it to new heights (Bush slightly less perhaps, but only because of the WoT)

- Both had little to no respect for civil liberties. Bush has his Patriot Act (which may not be as bad as its more rabid critics claim, but is still pretty damn bad) Clinton had the Reno DoJ.

- Both have shown no support for the 2A. Yeah, there was the promising DoJ amicus brief in Emerson , but so far that has been all talk no action. Both support the AWB, and neither has taken any steps to roll back existing firearms laws.

- Both have supported an increased welfare state. Bush recently pushed for and signed the idiotic Medicare drug package. Clinton tried to get Hillarycare in place early in his first term. To Clinton's credit, he did sign the massive welfare reform package that the Republican congress passed in the mid-90's. I believe Bush would have probably done something similar.

We did come up with a few differences. Clinton signed NAFTA, while Bush has reinstated several politically-oriented tariffs (this despite the claim that Repubs are more trade-oriented). Clinton had slightly more restrictive EPA regulations during his tenure. Bush has, true to his word, passed a couple of tax cuts. Clinton, on the other hand, managed to not drive up a huge deficit with unneccessary spending.

So, are there any other practical differences?

And please, keep it civil.

:cool:

[hm]

welfare reform
gun control
environmental policy
foreign policy (unilateralism)
vigorous proactive diplomacy as tool for israeli/palestinian conflict

There's 5 off the top of my head. These are issues of substance which Clinton and GW have materially handled differently...and which have had measurable, noticeable effects on the nation and world.

Full Disclosure--I'm that coworker the poster was speaking of.

[Quartus]

Well, taking that list one at a time...


welfare reform

? Are you giving credit to Clinton for welfare reform? I don't know if that's even worth refuting - anyone who can entertain that idea seriously, is seriously divorced from reality. He signed it with both feet held to the fire, and told his supporters he'd "fix it" later. NOT Clinton's idea, NOT Clinton's doing. It was done over his objections, and with his (and the rest of the Demo's) predictions of doom, defeat, and despair. It was a Republican triumph over the liberals.


gun control

Yup - Bush hasn't trashed our rights nearly as much as Clinton did, and Clinton didn't trash them nearly as much as he would have liked.

environmental policy

Yup. Another big difference. Clinton signed on to the entire junk science agenda of the extreme earth worshipers. Bush hasn't.


foreign policy (unilateralism)

Yup. Another big difference. Bush has taken serious (though not always correct) action against terrorists, rather than blowing up aspirin factories. He has actually acted as the Head of State of a sovereign nation, rather than as a lackey for the U.N. "Pweaze, oh pweaze give me permmission to protect myself!" :barf:


vigorous proactive diplomacy as tool for israeli/palestinian conflict

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You can't be serious! Clinton sure has shown his qualifications as a graduate of the Neville Chamberlain School of International Diplomacy.




Yes, there's a huge difference between the two. Bush is very misguided, and doesn't really understand the principles on which this country (and all freedom) was founded, but he means well. Clinton despises the principles on which this country was founded.

[hd1.]

With one, we had peace and prosperity. With the other one we had war and recession. Minor difference.:uhoh:

[TallPine]

Clinton had, for six years, an adversarial Congress (controlled by opposite party).

Bush has a mixed Congress, which has, with the exception of judge appointments, pretty much rubber stamped his policies.

[Quartus]

We had peace and prosperity that was a hangover from the Reagan years. Bush41 had begun to undo it. Clinton completed the job. Bush43 inherited Clinton's mess. The economy had started to go sour BEFORE the election. (One of the many things that liberals can't seem to grasp is that large economic changes don't happen overnight. It sometimes takes years to see the effects.)


(Though the .com bubble and bust was not the fault of politicians of EITHER party, but simply human greed and stupidity. But it only exacerbated a situation that was directly caused by Bush41 and Clinton's tax increases.)

[Silver Bullet]

With one, we had peace as a result of an administration ignoring and sweeping under the rug acts of war suffered by this country. With the other, we had war as a result of having to deal with the consequences of the non-action of the other administration.

With one, we had prosperity resulting from passing the (war) buck to the next administration, and from inspiring a climate of nonaccountability that led to corporations "cooking the books" in search of inflated stock evaluations. With the other, we have a recession resulting from terrorist activity and from corporations in recess due to the bubble bursting (the collapse started about a year before Bush took office).

[Brett Bellmore]

Differences? Yeah, there's some, though not enough.

Bush's political enemies aren't being audited by the IRS.

The Justice department isn't quashing investigations into possible criminal acts by Bush.

Women aren't filing rape complaints against him.

He didn't have to fire Justice department prosecutors when he took office, just to stave off impending criminal charges.

Summing up the differences along that line, Bush doesn't seem to be as personally corrupt as Clinton, nor does he seem to surround himself with corrupt toadies. Nor is there any evidence that his judicial nominees are completely political animals, the way many of Clinton's were. Clinton was a sociopath, who wound up corrupting much of the government in the process of fending off attempts to bring him to justice.

While Bush theoretically favors more gun control, to date he hasn't been willing to expend significant political capital trying to get it. Clinton was positively obsessive on the subject.

Haven't been any more Wacos. Then again, that mess was as much Bush's dad's fault, as Clinton's.

I don't expect Bush to sell pardons to the highest bidder when he leaves office, or to accept campaign donations from the Chicom army.

On the down side, Bush is a liberal Republican with a marginally Republican Congress, which exerts next to no restraint on his tendencies.

Bush seems to be utterly unaware that he has the authority to "veto" bad legislation. If a bill reaches his desk, he ALWAYS signs it.

It will come as no suprise to anybody here that Bush's worst grades in college were in... Economics.

And HIS obsession is with trying to win over to the Republican party some of the Democrats' most staunch constituencies, such as labor, hispanics, the NAACP... Even if he has to shaft his own base in the effort.

[Lone_Gunman]

What is the biggest difference between the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians? That would be another question to ponder.

The answer, of course, is that Democrats and Republicans can get elected.

So whether or not the Libertarians have any good ideas is unimportant.

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer, of course, is that Democrats and Republicans don't have good ideas. (Except the few they steal from Libertarians.) So though they do get elected, it doesn't do any good. :lol:

My opinion, as somebody who's been in the LP since the seventies, is that the Libertarian party's moment has passed. The only real chance it had was to sweep in, and supplant one of the major parties before they had time to realize that it was a serious threat, and take measures.

Well, they figured it out, and they took measures. Can't get into the Presidential debates any more. Election night results have Libertarian votes edited out. And every campaign finance law passed in the last two decades has had something in it to hurt us. We haven't been outlawed, as such, but the law discriminates against us enough to render us toothless.

Now the LP only serves two purposes: First, as a source of sensible ideas for the two major parties to steal, and screw up the implimentation of. And second, to hang around as a sort of opposition party in exile, waiting for the major parties to massively screw SOMETHING up, and leave an opening.

But they're both worthy purposes.

[Quartus]

Haven't been any more Wacos. Then again, that mess was as much Bush's dad's fault, as Clinton's.


Brett, I'm no fan of Bush41, but how do you figure he had and responsiblity for Waco?

[Brett Bellmore]

Simple. Reagan had put the BATF on a short leash. Bush the elder took them off it, and whispered "sic 'em" in their ears.

You're not going to deny that Ruby Ridge happened during the Bush administration, right? And what happened with the guilty parties? They got promoted. You think something like that doesn't send a message? One of many messages.

And Waco happened in February of '93. That was BUSH's BATF in action, Quartus. Clinton hadn't had time to make it his own, yet.

Yes, Clinton wasn't altogether innocent in the matter, what with putting a nutcase like Reno in that position. You might say that Bush was responsible for Waco happening, and Clinton for how very badly it turned out.

[Hkmp5sd]

1. When attacked by Osama bin Laden, Clinton blew up empty tents in the desert using cruise missiles. Bush sent troops to chase, capture and kill him.

2. Clinton committed adultery in the White House and then lied about it under oath and on national television. Bush says a prayer before cabinet meetings.

3. The UN told Clinton what to do. Bush tells the UN what to do (and where they can go if they don't do what they are told).

4. Clinton sold the Chinese secret information and technology in return for illegal campaign donations. Bush doesn't.

5. Clinton turned down 3 offers from host countries to hand bin Laden over to the Americans. Think Bush will?

6. Clinton got the North Koreans to "agree" not to build nuclear weapons by building them a couple of nuclear power plants. Since they ignored Clinton and now have nuclear weapons, Bush stands up to their threats.

7. The United State's military and law enforcement communities respect Bush. They loath both Clintons.

Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc.Etc......

[Quartus]

You're not going to deny that Ruby Ridge happened during the Bush administration, right?


Whoa, thar hoss! I'm not arguing with you and I'm NOT defending BushDaddy*. I was just wondering what connection you were making.


And I see your point. Especially vis a vis Reagan's treatment of BATF and Bush's.



*I consider him to be a traitor, almost as much as Clinton.

[Standing Wolf]

Neither the Republicrats nor the Democans actually stand for much of anything. I'll probably continue to vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, but if I get tired of voting for evils, I'll go back to voting Libertarian.