Karl rove. Did he just kick the Tea Party out?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What is disturbing about this list is Christie and another Bush is 3rd and 4th. :-\ I'll blow this off for now because it's still way-early but good grief. :shake:

Another bush would be worse than another clinton. Clinton presided over the last halfway decent economy we've had, and both bushes presided over relatively weak economies, both guys leaving the economy in a recession.

Though to be fair, clinton got out by the skin of his teeth. If he'd been in office another 6 months he would have owned the Y2K recession. And presidents don't have much power to improve an economy, though they certainly have sufficient power to ruin an economy.

Its way too soon to discuss 2016, and the percentages would change after california, ny, and florida type states vote R primaries. But the total percentages for cruz and paul are much higher than the total percentages for krispy and bush.

Now I admit to ignorance and may be wrong, but so far if cruz is gonna show severe social conservative tendencies, he is smart enough to keep his mouth shut. So the top 4 contenders I wouldn't consider particularly social conservative, and the most authoritarian social conservative candidates, santorum and ryan, are in the bottom of the barrel scrapings.

IMO strong social conservative bona fides would doom an R presidential victory worse than anything else, so MAYBE this portends good. Maybe conservatives are getting desperate enough to settle for a non authoritarian fiscal conservative, dare I say libertarian candidate. Which ought to woo some democrats and fence sitters.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, Lester, you're right. Clinton only presided
over an economy, but had nothing to do with
one.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeh, Lester, you're right. Clinton only presided
over an economy, but had nothing to do with
one.

Perhaps it is incorrect that a president's primary power over the economy is the power of destruction. However, if this idea is at all valid, then consistency demands that the economic performance of both bushes would lump them in with the likes of carter and obama. Maybe "not quite as bad" but certainly not good.

Carter was "a perfect storm" because not only was he unusually feckless, but he fecklessly presided over 'chickens coming home to roost' from 14 years of prior destruction by johnson/nixon/ford. If carter hadn't inherited so much trouble then perhaps his incompetence wouldn't have been quite so damaging.

Now obama could break an anvil, but it wouldn't have been near as bad if bush jr hadn't left the economy in such a damaged condition.

Both reagan and clinton made plenty of mistakes, but the proof is in the pudding-- Relatively good times. Assuming that clinton did NOTHING positive, at least he managed to refrain from damaging the economy seriously enough to bring it down.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They all made plenty of mistakes. Getting the passing grade from the country by being a previous president would be more correct.
There is usually time disconnect between who
did what and who took credit.

It also occurs, from time to time that no one did anything to take credit over. But we know someone will always try.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Assuming that clinton did NOTHING positive, at least he managed to refrain from damaging the economy seriously enough to bring it down.

Oh, he certainly would have seriously damaged the country more if it hadn't been for the '94 Repblican revolution where they gained control of Congress for 1st time in over 40 years. His s### head veep cast the tie breaking vote in the senate to pass tax increases, and we got the assualt weapons ban before the Republicans took control. If not for the R revolution where they controlled the purse strings, we probably would already have Hidebeastcare instead of Obamacare. We certainly would have had more far left liberal legislation that would have accelerated America's decline even more instead of the welfare reform that was passed b/c of the R revolution, and where Clinton got the credit for it simply b/c he was the POTUS. He gets credit for the balanced budgets only b/c of the R revolution.

He was the first flag burning hippie to become POTUS. A poster boy for the moral decadence for the country. A real pos and a contributing factor to why we've elected another pos as POTUS. It's debatable as to who is the first commie POTUS, Clinton or Obama. Too bad we didn't have R control of Congress when they shoved this Obamacare crap on the country that's gonna destroy our freedoms, privacy, jobs, economy, healthcare, insurance companies, and everything about American capitalism.

The proof in the pudding was that Reagan rebuilt our military to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. He believed in the Constitution, and the American principles passed to us from the founding fathers. He believed that the people knew how to spend their money better than the government. He believed in smaller government where people would have more say in their liberties and freedoms, and could live out those liberties and freedoms. Great times economically,militarily, and individually for our country during the Reagan years.

During the Clinton years we see the beginning of America's moral decline that ultimately has lead to the downfall of our status as the economic and military superpower of the world. Moral decadence has been the most defining factor for the collapse of the most powerful empires during world history, and it will also be the defining factor for the fall of America. We are at the edge of the cliff, and the current pos in the WH is giving us a push.