Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush
Defenders of George W. Bush sometimes argue that Bill Clinton set a new (lower) standard for presidential behavior. While this is at best a "he did it first" argument, and more likely just changing the subject, it is worth setting the record straight on the matter in order to minimize the amount of time spent being sidetracked.
Perhaps this could be so true Bill Clinton hadnt had much time in office and in this case it was the reason why he had lower the standard for presidential behavior.
- See the discussion page for substantial discussion on this topic.
- Balkans vs. Iraq: A comparison between one campaign under Clinton and one under Bush
This page is in need of updating.
Most of these figures are from ~2007, long before the economic crisis hit. The crisis obviously made Bush's figures much worse, and numbers at the end of his 2nd term should be included – but to be as fair as possible, figures from before the crisis should probably be included in a separate column, since the degree to which Bush is responsible for the collapse is a matter of some disagreement.Also, at least one source is needed for all of these numbers.
|Bill Clinton||George W. Bush|
|doubled the Border Patrol early in his first term||severely cut Border Patrol funds1|
|Subject of lying||his personal life||significant matters of state|
|Severity of lying||charged with perjury2 (lying under oath)||aforesaid lies were merely official statements and not under oath|
|charged with obstruction of justice2||informally accused of attempted destruction of Democracy|
|Economy||"It's The Economy, Stupid"|
|Average annual GDP growth||3.6%||2.6%|
|Non-farm employment||added 22.7 million jobs||added 3 million jobs|
(worst record of any US president in 70 years)
|Unemployment||7.3% -> 4.2%||4.2% -> 6.5%3|
|Real median household income||grew by $5,825||fell by $1,273|
|poverty rate||fell 3.5% (6.4 million fewer people)||rose 1.3% (5.4 million more people)|
|S&P 500||+ 308% (435.49 -> 1342.54)||- 2.1% (1342.54 -> 1314.78 as of 9/22/06)|
|NASDAQ||+ 395% (700.77 -> 2770.38)||- 20% (2770.38 -> 2218.93 as of 9/22/06).|
|Federal Spending as % of GDP||22.1% (fiscal 1992) to 18.4% in 20004||back up to 20.8% (fiscal 2006)|
|total executive branch employment
does not include classified numbers for CIA, DIA, NSA, & other intelligence agencies; does not include outsourced jobs
|down by almost 450,000 (2.225 million -> 1.778 million)||up by almost 100,000 (to 1.872 million).|
|Federal Debt||deficit of $290 billion —> surplus of $236 billion (fiscal 2000)||increased by almost $3 trillion (as of 2006)|
|Public Debt as % of GDP||-16.4%||+4.4%|
See also Balkans vs. Iraq
These charges were made by Republican-led congress but acquitted by the Democrat-led Senate, a decision which many (especially but not exclusively Republicans) disagreed with vehemently.
Presumably post-crisis; source needed.
anonymous user 22.214.171.124 said:
All spending cuts after 1996 election are when Republicans reclaimed majority of the house and senate. During this time they created the "Contract with America". During Clinton's last 4 years they strong armed him into cutting taxes, government spending, and reducing the deficit. None of which happened under his first 4 years when Democrats had full power. Clinton's inflated numbers also coincide with the dot com boom which collapsed in 99/2000, leaving president Bush with a full blown recession to take over for. Bush and his policies remained strong through that recession, 9/11, and through to 2006 when Democrats took over the house. Until that time Bush also had record high approval ratings and his policies kept the economy from a full blown collapse. Democrats strong arming Bush forced into law the housing bill and financial bills that caused the market crash of the financial and home sections. Democrats also penned the TARP bill that Bush signed into law before leaving office, giving democrats and soon a newly elected democrat president full power to spend 1 trillion dollars of chineese money as it sees fit.
I have not yet had time to evaluate this paragraph; it may or may not be substantially true. My previous experience with pro-Bush and anti-Clinton arguments leads me to be suspicious of them (they tend to be full of distortions if not outright untruths), but a relatively coherent position such as this does deserve examination. Its main problem is a lack of sources to help determine its accuracy. (Also, the idea that the GOP actually accomplished any serious budget-cutting runs against my current understanding.) (Update: also, the dot-com boom collapsed in mid-2001, for what it's worth.) --Woozle 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"No children died / when Clinton lied." – seen 2006-09-22
"Republicans used to observe derisively that Clinton had a difficult relationship with the truth. Bush has a difficult relationship with the truth, too. It's just a different – and perhaps more grave – kind of difficulty." – William Saletan
|David Brin said on 2007-03-25 (with minor editing):|
The top ostrich tactic is to claim that Clinton was only marginally not quite as bad [as Bush], but made of the same substance.
Wrong. He was utterly and diametrically opposite to these guys in almost every way.
While a sinner and somewhat slick/slimy, he stayed with a wife and child his entire adult life. Since Reagan, the GOP has done an utter reverse and become the party of divorce, utterly forgiving [their] marriage-monsters simply because they are on the right side, and ignoring the hypocrisy that nearly ALL of Clinton's pursuers had no right to cast stones at him, or even to stare upward in awe at his marriage.
This hypocrisy is vastly outweighed by the far worse hypocrisy toward malfeasance in office. Dig it. EVERY weapon of disclosure was aimed at the Clintons.
Congressional investigations raged, special prosecutors stomped about like Godzilla, spending BILLIONS.
FBI agents were diverted from important anti-terror duties DURING THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 with the sole goal of finding a smoking Clintonian gun that could lead to indictments. (An act of treason, frankly.)
The GSA and all Inspectors General were ordered to leave no stone unturned.
Now add to that the fact that Clinton et al DECREASED SECRECY IN GOVERNMENT to a larger degree than any before it. Ever. Diametrically opposite to the skyrocketing secrecy of these monsters.
Add it all together and the result? Absolutely ZERO INDICTMENTS OF ANY CLINTONIAN FOR MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE OF ANY KIND, WHATSOEVER. Twelve years of culture war and radio screeches and howls about "slick willy" and "the most corrupt" administration...
...and it turned out to be – by any objective measure – by far the most open and honest administration in the entire history of the entire human race. Proved (ironically) by the relentless scrutiny of its opposition.
Disprove this. Put up or shut up. I am sick of this example of the Big Lie.
The Big Truth is that Clinton was an honest and excellent administrator whose appointees treated the civil servants and officers with respect and got good work out of them, trying to make government lean and effective in service of the people of the United States.
This is proved and diametrically opposite to absolutely everything about the monsters who replaced them.
So no. I will not stop mentioning Clinton. It is perfectly relevant to demand that ostriches ponder "what if Clinton had done this?" Because if Clinton had – if he had done a SCINTILLA of the monstrous things that are leaking out of the tight wall of collusion and secrecy and stonewalling – then the ostrich would have screeched bloody murder.
This is hypocrisy, cowardice.
And if some new thing happens – say to the US Navy – without ostriches waking up to pull their heads out of the sand and turning their eyes to treason in their midst, then I say that they will be traitors, too.
|in Contrary Brin|
Response from the original provocateur:
|David Brin said on 2007-03-15:|
[Clinton's perjury] is far worse than relentless firehose tsunamis of relentlessly shameful lying about matters of PUBLIC POLICY and LIFE and DEATH?
Bush and Cheney and Powell lie to the entire world and to the American people, in order to get us to waste a trillion dollars, ten thousand of our own lives, half a million foreign lives, destroy our alliances, our readiness, our world trust...
...but none of those are REALLY bad lies BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T PERPETRATED UNDER OATH?
Sorry, wrong. They WERE perpetrated under oath. An oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
|in Contrary Brin|
Brin goes on to point out that this argument is pure sophistry in any case, as it is equivalent to saying that FDR is a worse war criminal than Hitler because FDR signed orders creating Japanese internment camps during WWII, while Hitler never actually signed the orders creating Auschwitz. (Is there a name for this logical fallacy?)
News & Views
- 'Tucker' for Sept. 26: more discussion of Clinton's interview ("The former president lost control of himself famously during a FOX interview on Sunday."), with Terry McAuliffe (former DNC chairman) defending Clinton and attacking Bush; Tucker seems to take a sympathetic stand but comes up with things like "eight years of negligence on the part of the Clinton administration".
- Arguments for your obstinate uncle...: some more comparison points (by Russ Daggatt, with some Brin commentary)
- Bill Clinton's Fox News interview (alternate transcription (partial))
- Keith Olbermann comments ("A textbook definition of cowardice"):
- Points out that (a) Clinton did try to do something about Bin Laden, (b) Clinton was indeed distracted by the Lewinsky scandal, and (c) The distractions of 1998 and 1999 (Lewinsky and other scandalous trivia) were manufactured by the same people who got George W. Bush elected President.
- Keith Olbermann comments ("A textbook definition of cowardice"):
- 2007-12-13 "dave" comments: "This lays it out pretty well. No "fuzzy math"...W's favorite kind."