Bill Clinton Leads George Bush Among Conservative Critics

The Washington Post reports that a CATO Institute panel discussion of the Bush Administration’s policies, the White House couldn’t be bothered to send a representative.

“We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come,” explained David Boaz, the think tank’s executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. “We didn’t get that.”

The two panelists who were there, Bruce Bartlett and Andrew Sullivan, are longtime conservatives fed up with Bush and his anti-conservative actions. The White House has obviously decided that, rather than defending the indefensible, they’ll just hide until the critics go away.

They might be smart to hide. One of Bartlett’s quips illustrates just how bad it’s become for the President.

“If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I’d vote for Clinton.”

So would I, Mr. Bartlett, so would I.

Nicholas Sarwark

Mr. Sarwark lives in Colorado and keeps poor people out of cages for a living. His views are his own, not his employer's, his wife's, or his dog's. They are also awesome and always right.

  1. If Bush were running against Clinton, there wouldn’t be a Libertarian candidate, would there? In order for there to be a Libertarian candidate, the statement would have needed to be “If Bush were running against Clinton and Browne” or something ;-)

    Sophistry. It’s not just for breakfast any more.

  2. We might as well start up a school for swords and sophistry then.

    10 points to whomever places the reference. :)

  3. So would you? You wouldn’t vote for the Libertarian candidate?

    If the Clinton Crime Family/National Socialist Democratic Party is striving to take a majority in the Reichstag of the USSA – or to elect their chosen Family Boss as Boss of All Bosses of the Commission, aka Cesar POTUS – I do also currently find them to be marginally better than the Bush Crime Family/National Socialist GOP/Red Bandana Gang.

    But would I actually go all the way to the extent of personally putting on a blue bandana again, and revert to throwing up signs for the Blue Gang (CCF/NSDP)? Or would it be better to cast a “protest vote” against gang wars, crime families etc? Does the LP really present a “no” vote, or is it striving to become one of the gangs itself, if given a chance? Is it more effective to vote no by voting LP, or by not voting at all to protest the phony system of voting and the miscounting of the vote?

    These are all valid options, and my naswer keeps changing.

  4. We get it, you accidentally misspelled “answer” and think it’s funny. :)

  5. I actually thought that was too obvious to be funny or interesting until I got a smartass response.