Jesse Walker | March 14, 2006
Remember the days when it didn't seem unusual to read about a conservative like this one?
[Via Daniel McCarthy.]
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"It's sad when you look back at the Clinton days and think,
boy, those were the good old conservative spending days," he
said."
Yeah, pretty much sums up how I feel about it, too. Even given that
Clinton was probably the most antagonistic president to my pet
issue ever. Otherwise, I find myself pining for the good
ol' days when everyone was up in arms over a blowjob, and not, say,
wiretapping people without warrants, suspending their rights, and
then trying them in secret courts.
"I'm not all that happy with the growth of government under
the Republicans," said Kunkel. "I truly believe that government in
a lot of ways has grown bigger under (President) Bush.
Wow. Now there's a guy who doesn't pull any punches.
"It's sad when you look back at the Clinton days and think, boy,
those were the good old conservative spending days..."
That's a great quote.
mediageek,
And of course there was the "Clipper Chip" and several internet
content laws that Clinton signed and promoted were struck down.
No, they weren't. But at the same time, they certainly weren't
the assembly line of statism we seem to have today.
More like a cottage industry.
I'm saying of course that the 1990s were no libertarian
idyll.
Nobody would argue they were. I think the part about "it's sad when
you look back at Clinton", as spoken by a Kentucky Republican, was
meant to convey that. But the original point was that by
comparison you'd think it was.
At the time I thought Clinton was the worst president of my
lifetime. Now he seems like George Washington. By comparison.
The Clipper Chip is almost -- almost -- quaint by comparison with
what Bush and his men have done.
independent worm,
My point is that we tend to gloss over a lot of the crap from the
1990s when comparing Bush to Clinton. IMHO its more of an
issue-specific function to me, rather than a difference in overall
approach by either guy.
some of clinton's actions laid the pathway for our current tree
of bitter fruit.
effective death penalty act?
one uptick, however, is that i get to hold clinton's "you can't
love you country and hate your government" schtick over all my
bushitler friends, at least the ones still pretending to be
democrats.
But at the same time, they certainly weren't the assembly
line of statism we seem to have today.
Echelon, anyone?
Socialized health care?
Repeal of some Reagan-era tax cuts?
Assault weapons ban?
Elian Gonzalez? Waco?
And lets not forget some rather . . . interesting . . .
coincidences in who got an IRS proctology exam and who didn't.
At the time I thought Clinton was the worst president of my
lifetime. Now he seems like George Washington. By
comparison
Wow. I think Clinton was our second least worst
president in my lifetime (born mid sixties), although Ford actually
has bragging rights for the second least worst too. But given time
I suspect he'd of done some damage. I have a lot of contempt for
the first President Bush, both now and then. Nixon and Carter I
have major issues with due to their embrace of inflation and price
controls, not to mention the usual beefs with fascist-like
behaviour and feebleness respectively.
H.W. Bush is clearly our worst president since FDR in my opinion,
at least until his son comes under consideration. Now Clinton would
have won that title if he had managed to screw over our health care
system a la Canada like he wanted to, but he didn't.
I give zero points for intentions, zero points for words, and tons
of points for actions.
RC Dean, I'm not disagreeing with you one iota with regard to
the stuff Clinton did.
The ban on so-called "assault weapons" was a huge thing to me. And
that other stuff is arguably even bigger than that.
But with the Democrats, at least I knew what I was getting. I
expected to be pissed off and angry at the stuff they were doing.
By contrast, the Republicans have reneged on everything the party
supposedly stands for, from small government to lower taxes, to
more personal liberty (at least with regard to some things.)
He home-schools his children; is against
abortion and more taxes; believes government spends too
much money; backs the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights;
and decries Republican-backed legislation such as the Patriot Act,
the federal anti-terrorism bill he says is a danger to American's
civil rights.
Typical. Even the most libertarian-leaning folks usually have a
blind spot when it comes to their comittment to others' freedoms...
sad.
nmg
I pretty pro-choice, nmg, but can you honestly say that if we had more folks like this guy (provided he would actually do anything to rein in the the gov't and protect civil rights) that we wouldn't be a helluva lot better off?
If this guy wasn't a Bible-thumper, I'd donate some time and
money to his campaign.
40ish MWM from central Ohio seeks "that government governs best
which governs least"/non christian recon candidate to donate time
and $ to. Willing to travel to IN, KY, WV, PA. No wolverines
please.
Typical. Even the most libertarian-leaning folks usually
have a blind spot when it comes to their comittment to others'
freedoms... sad
Only if you assume the only relevant "other" who has rights is the
pregnant woman.
If you assume that the fetus is also a rights-having "other", than
you can in fact conclude that there is a legitimate clash of
individual rights there, and could also then conclude that you
favor the rights of the fetus.
Either position can be held by a libertarian (or anyone at all),
depending on one's assumption about who is a rights-having
individual and who isn't.
Lest anyone get too optimistic, here's what's running in another
state:
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/HM/twilight.mov
Typical. Even the most libertarian-leaning folks usually
have a blind spot when it comes to their comittment to others'
freedoms... sad.
Is the Libertarian Party "libertarian-leaning" enough for
you?
...Seriously folks, religious fanatics or atheist fanatics, I dunno
which one's worse.
I'm not an atheist fanatic. I'm a personal liberty fanatic. And
this guy is all for limiting the influence of government and
valuing your liberty.... *unless* you are making choices that he
finds distasteful or offensive. It's just pure luck that most
choices don't offend him so he sounds libertarian. But he's NOT
libertarian.
He's perfectly fine with the act of limiting freedoms he finds
objectionable, just like other politicans. It just happens that his
list of objectionable freedoms is shorter than other politicans but
his philosophy is the same.
nmg
When the fuck will we stop hearing about Republicans that say nice things before they're elected?! Before 2000 I thought Republicans were every bit as bad as Democrats. Now I know they are worse, but that's just until the Dem's get their turn at the plate. I'm sure they can sink to new lows.
I have nothing to say except that this makes me somewhat prouder to be of (partly, for one generation) of Northern Kentuckian descent. Florence, y'all!
I used to think conservatives like Kunkel were the most
ruthless, dangerous people on the American political scene.
I have recently been disabused of that notion.
Does anyone else remember the Pets.com dog's appearance with
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on Conan O'Brien?
Heh heh heh heh.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245