I stated that Clinton's economic performance was stellar but the economic boom that he presided over ended toward the end of his second term and that's an undeniable fact. How great the economic boom was is inconsequential when discussing what Bush inherited since it fizzled out toward the end. What matters is that the boom had ended and the GDP was negative when Bush took over and that disputes your claim that Bush inherited an economic boom. The measurement of an inheritance is based on economic performance at the time of the inheritance and not what it was prior.
Your indian name is Hair-splitter. One quarter of economic drop after a 8-year run-up to unprecedented levels is hardly a "fizzle". Even after that tiny drop, look how high the graph is. If I pick a bushel of apples and then take one back before giving it all to you . . . would you feel cheated?
The House of Representatives kept Billy in check. Newt somebody let Bill know who controlled the purse.
A negative GDP growth is quite the fizzle. If a patient's test results for nearly 8 years indicate a picture of good health but then shows he has high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and borderline diabetes is the patient in good health since his test results were good all the other years? Of course not. GDP measured the economy that Bush inherited to be unhealthy and none of the prior quarters, no matter how they performed, influence that.
That is a false analogy because tests result will always be positive until the occurrence of a disease and always be negative afterwards. In a economy, there is constant fluctuation and there are recessions and economic booms, there is never a "disease" point before which all is positive and after which all is negative. In your cherry picking of a single quarter and insisting upon ignoring all data before and after it, you conveniently eliminate what the trend shows, which is the key diagnostic. It ignores averaging, which smooths the insignificant dips and peaks in a curve. It eliminates consideration of the change in total levels involved by eliminating time from the analysis. The smallest interval that we may consider is the entire 8-year terms of Clnton and Bush. You'll need a lot more than this to effective argue that the 1990's were not economic boom years.
So, back to Benghazi: Why do Republicans care so much about this? Why haven't Democrats pushed back with the funding requests to increase security that were denied by Congress? If anything could have prevented this disaster, it would have been increased security forces prior to the issue developing. Instead, we have the GOP screaming because of poor PR execution? How many wars did we enter as a result of this "lie"? How many died as a result of this "lie"? How is this lie different from every pther lie from Washington? Hillary. The GOP is scared shitless of her and is attempting to hang this around her neck in preparation for her run in 2016...
Because they are feces throwers and fear mongerers. This is all being led by Fox. The same news organization that did everything it could to play down the lying that got us into Iraq killing thousands. That, Hillary and news that Obamacare support is growing. So they need a quick change of subject so it's Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. And their sheep viewers will lap that shit up like a bowl of milk after cinnamon toast crunch was eaten out of it.
Once again the republicans are catering to their conservative "base" instead of reaching out to moderates and liberals. Benghazi has been investigated out the wazoo and there just ain't much of a story there. It will have less voter impact than Monica Lewinski on everybody except the knee-jerk right-wingers.
It's being talked about everywhere, mon ami. The GOP is losing ground demographically. It's been the rich white man's party for too long to go back now, so the hard-core just embraces the base. It's losing moderates and conservative women, minorities, and young people. There are serious competing factions in the GOP these days and that will not help them in the 2016 primaries. The recent formula has been to go far right to win the the republican nomination. That puts the candidate too far right to get elected. The Obama democrats have not been playing politics as smart as the populist Bill Clinton did, but they have not gone off the left cliff or have a Tea-Party type split happening. And a Clintonian way of doing things is back on the horizon. The politically astute and popular Sir William of Smooth will not only be back in the White House, but he will be fucking the President. No former President has even been in this ...er,... position before. His finest skills can be put to use in an unprecedented level of power and influence. He's actually found a way to get two more terms in the White House.
