Bush and Clinton

Well, the comments are atrocious from both sides. I used to say that I thought Clinton was a republican in sheep's clothing, but in reality, if republicans are for small government and less spending, then Bush doesn't qualify, either. Actually, I don't know of any politicians that really believe in "less government." How could they? How would they earn an "honest" living? If we had less government, we'd have fewer politicians. What in the world would we do with unemployed politicians? What other line of work offers such networked, high end income, exceptional benefits, and so little accountability? And what other skills do these people have? But back to these two guys and their comments about pardons and commutations. Everything that has been said "officially" is ridiculous about this situation, and Bill Clinton did the same thing when he had the power. From the stats I read, all of the presidents in the last sixty years, have granted a number of pardons. In all fairness to Bush, he has granted the fewest, but then he was that kind of Texas governor, also. Texas has certainly earned the reputation it has for crime and punishment. Bill Clinton did raise, even some liberal eyebrows with some of his pardons, but the number of his pardons and commutations, according to my source; was quite near to Ronald Reagan's numbers. I don't care to join the bashing and debate about which party is more hideous, or which man has less integrity, because frankly, I think what Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton have both proven, is the fact that politicians simply don't feel the need to answer to the people, once the votes are counted.
I had trouble finding a Scripture to end this blog, because the word SMARMY is not contained in Scripture.
Fair words are not to be looked for from a foolish man, much less are false lips in a ruler . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture