[bryantm3]

I think they're both morons, but they each have good points:
-Clinton did not get Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to. This is a fact.

-Bush and the neo-conservatives spent gobs and gobs of money during relative peacetime and economic growth on pork-barrel spending and other ridiculous uses of taxpayer dollars.

What I disagree with:
-Hannity's constant claim of quadrupiling the deficit. Any moron that has actually studied keynesian economics to any extent knows that there are two ways to get out of a recession: lowering taxes or government spending. This is simply an idelogical difference, and the fact of the matter is that they both run up significant and comparable deficits. 'Supply side economics' is simply using lower taxes instead of government spending. The theory is that if spending is significantly cut back after the economy begins to grow, the tax revenue received from the economic growth will pay off the deficit spending made during the recession.

-Ventura's claim that somehow Bush is directly connected with bin Laden. That's some left-wing junk that Michael Moore came up with when he connected a bunch of papers from Bush's AWOL from the National Guard. If all this was true, why didn't Clinton make any effort to prevent 9/11? The truth is that they did not think he was a viable threat at the time. They won't admit it, but their intelligence was inferior, Clinton was a lame-duck, and the country was focused primarily on domestic issues rather than international issues, and the CIA was on lunch break.

I find Hannity to be a neo-conservative moron rather than an actual conservative. It makes me vomit that Hannity titles his ideology after Reagan, one of our greatest presidents, while everything he says points to GWB.