Bruce Bartlett (Former Reagan Admin)"I'd Vote For Clinton Over Bush"

"If I had a choice and Bush were running today against (Democratic President) Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Bill Clinton," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration Treasury Department official whose book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is making the rounds of conservative think tanks and talk shows. "He was clearly a much better president in a great many ways that matter to me."

Bartlett may lie at the extreme, but his critique taps into a strong undertow -- reflected in a sharp drop in Bush's support among his typically solid Republican base, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

"Bush's compassionate conservatism has morphed into big government conservatism, and that isn't what the base is looking for," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "The White House and the congressional leadership have got to reinvigorate the Republican base. In off-year elections ... if your base isn't energized, particularly in a relatively evenly divided electorate, you've got more problems than you think you have."

Any significant drop in GOP turnout in the November midterms -- when the party in power is historically weak -- could prove disastrous for Republicans.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/BUSH.TMP

Peace, Prosperity and No Debt.

Pity Bush is such a fool.

Run on, "Ahh.. The Clinton(Gore) Years"

Essentially, Krugman said: What took you so long?

I can't remember where I read it. If I remember, I'll post a link.

It was called The Conservative Epiphany.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=28777bb0Q2Fu7jUuQ3BLwQ26Q26Q3BuQ7Eee6ue-ugeuQ26KQ5EXQ5EQ26XugeQ3Cwh!HxXQ2AkQ3BHQ23

I read it free at a different website, but can't remember which one.

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/03/10/the-conservative-epiphany
(Not where I read it, but this will do.)

Bruce Bartlett, the author of “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,” is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is “unconscionable,” “irresponsible,” “vindictive” and “inept.”

It’s no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that “if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears.”

Oh, wait. That’s not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It’s what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he’s saying now.

Human nature being what it is, I don’t expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face.

Meanwhile, I found a link to True Blue Liberal. I guess Krugman's article has gotten around. :)

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/03/10/the-conservative-epiphany

....Human nature being what it is, I don’t expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic...Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn’t trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there’s something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush’s deceptions, even though the administration’s mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you’re a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that “the administration lies about budget numbers,” you’re a brave truth-teller. But if you’ve been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you’re a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that “the people in this administration have no principles,” you’re taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you’re a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you’re to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.....

as the best Republican president of recent generations.

Why did Senator Clinton's name automaticaly pop into my head when I read that ?:D

a good Eisenhower Republican.

I can remember it fairly well. There were three recessions during Ike's tour of the White House. How many were there during Clinton's? During Clinton Administration, 100 times as many people moved above the poverty line as during ole Raygun. I wasn't one of them. I have never needed much help from any part of the government.
This country could use another 'good Republican' president like Clinton. Or maybe you would prefer the last Dem before Clinton, Jimmy Carter?