Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Fellow liberals, let's be honest

Scipio · 02-02-2004, 10:46 PM

A writer I like likes to talk about the Clinton test. It's a sort of reality check. What you do is, you look at something the Bush administration does, and say, "would I support this if it was Clinton doing it?" It's designed as a question for Dems to ask, but I suppose a Republican might learn a thing or two from it as well. So, without further ado, here are a few thoughts:

1. The war in Iraq. "If Clinton invaded Iraq, would we support him, even if it meant assuming that Iraq was a greater threat that it might actually be?"

It would depend on the selling, but I would probably back Clinton if he went into Iraq in 2003 or 2004. However, I doubt that his administration would construe it to be as great at threat as Bush's people did. Clinton might have given the inspectors more time, or worked longer to develop an international coalition, with or without the UN. But, on principle, I have to say I would be behind him.

2. The tax cut. "If Clinton proposed a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut, would I support it?"

I think the record shows that Clinton is incapable of proposing such a tax cut, and I wouldn't support him if I did. I might even start to question if he started inhaling again, whether or not he did it in the past.

3. The medicare bill. "If Clinton signed the exact same bill that Bush did, would I consider it a good thing?"

I think the Bush bill is a bad bill. In a way, that's because it's a compromise, but there are two clear problems. One, it prevents us from negotiating a good price (which is both bad government policy and bad economic policy), and from importing cheaper drugs from canada. If these glaring concessions were necessary for passage, I might support it as a compromise.

So what do you guys think? We all know Clinton wouldn't do what Bush has done, but how much of our opposition is personal?

02-02-2004, 10:46 PM	#1 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Fellow liberals, let's be honest - the Clinton test A writer I like likes to talk about the Clinton test. It's a sort of reality check. What you do is, you look at something the Bush administration does, and say, "would I support this if it was Clinton doing it?" It's designed as a question for Dems to ask, but I suppose a Republican might learn a thing or two from it as well. So, without further ado, here are a few thoughts: 1. The war in Iraq. "If Clinton invaded Iraq, would we support him, even if it meant assuming that Iraq was a greater threat that it might actually be?" It would depend on the selling, but I would probably back Clinton if he went into Iraq in 2003 or 2004. However, I doubt that his administration would construe it to be as great at threat as Bush's people did. Clinton might have given the inspectors more time, or worked longer to develop an international coalition, with or without the UN. But, on principle, I have to say I would be behind him. 2. The tax cut. "If Clinton proposed a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut, would I support it?" I think the record shows that Clinton is incapable of proposing such a tax cut, and I wouldn't support him if I did. I might even start to question if he started inhaling again, whether or not he did it in the past. 3. The medicare bill. "If Clinton signed the exact same bill that Bush did, would I consider it a good thing?" I think the Bush bill is a bad bill. In a way, that's because it's a compromise, but there are two clear problems. One, it prevents us from negotiating a good price (which is both bad government policy and bad economic policy), and from importing cheaper drugs from canada. If these glaring concessions were necessary for passage, I might support it as a compromise. So what do you guys think? We all know Clinton wouldn't do what Bush has done, but how much of our opposition is personal? __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."