The oddest thing that I have noticed through hours of insomnia spent watching c-span lately is that all the Dem. candidates are complaining about the deficit and the pending debt, but they are also claiming that Bush has spent nothing on his "No Child Left Behind" education reform, the environment is worse now than ever because of lack of funding, more needs to spent and done to garner everyone healthcare, etc etc... Where do they think it is all going? And where would the deficits be if they were pouring more money into these programs like they have stated in their speeches?

Well, you see, by knocking off five points from the marginal tax rates, and giving businesses more generous deductions for buying new equipment, he's caused huge new deficits.

If he hadn't done that, we could have raised spending even more than he already has, you see, and thus, since he has increased spending, the deficits are caused by the tax cuts and also by not spending enough.

Follow the logic. It's very clear, if only you smoke enough pot.

Dean, I'm with you here, particularly on point three.

Bush has expanded the government in every direction. His domestic programs increase meddling, such as the no child left behind act.

This guy is the anti-Clinton. Clinton was fairly moderate in his spending and on domestic programs, pissing off his left-wing constituency no end, who felt stuck with him. Bush is triangulating the other way -- to the left, figuring conservatives have nowhere to go.

The Dems have a real opportunity here. They can get around Bush to the right on domestic issues ... without even seeming so. Believe it or not, the Dems now have a record of more responsible spending than the GOP. There's more than a good chance to get Bush out of there in 2004.

I'm just hoping the Dems nominate someone decent, which is looking more likely.

Should be an interesting campaign.
The

I'd say point number 2 is the one that most people who are pissed off, are incapable of really, deep down, comprehending.

But on a related note, I've heard rumors that Bush is planning to submit a budget where most non-defense discretionary spending is about 1% increase.

Now if people can just remember what should probably be point #4 - Congress is ultimately in charge of the final budget, and a Presidential veto due to too much pork is just going to get overturned.

I think the reason more people are ticked off at Dubya rather than Reagan is because Reagan didn't have a Republican Congress that he might have led in reducing government. Some of us would like to see Dubya lead the Republican Congress as we dreamed Reagan might have done.

Seems like putting faith in mere mortals isn't a very bright thing to do...

<ducks and runs>

McGehee: Good point. I think a lot of us thought the GOP would finish the Reagan Revolution, now that they control all three houses of Congress.

But the Bushes were never the Reagans ... remember Reagan really was an outsider. He was the last president who didn't go to Yale. I'm not sure where his people are right now. Bush the elder raised taxes and fiddled ineffectively with the economy. Bush I and II had trouble creating jobs. Who are the heirs to Reagan? Where are they?

I thought it was Dubya, but I was wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. F*(&%*&$! Now what?

Dean, you're doing it. Bush cut the tax RATE--which has the long term effect of increasing tax REVENUES. Here.

Bush is a Republican, not a conservative. There's a huge difference. He's a perfect illustration of that point.

Bush has alienated conservatives because he isn't "right." He's a moderate. He's only right by contrast. The left has moved so far left he only SEEMS right. That's why Republicans, and Bush's policies, don't seem so out of kilter for you anymore. The Republican party has shifted left.

The other half of the country is right where they've always been. The chasm widens.

1) Party labels don't mean what they used to.

2) There's no such thing as a free lunch.

I suppose that some of my fellow conservatives are a bit upset with President Bush - but not enough to cause a stir; I think that Mr. Fund is greatly overstating the case. At any rate, given the five top Democratic candidates, no fiscal conservative would really vote for one of them over President Bush if the hope is to reign in spending.

Its all the exingencies of the situation - a war situation in which the President doesn't want to pick budget fights with the Democrats; a situation wherein the President's party holds on 51 Senate seats and the GOP majority is secured by two GOPers who are much more Democratic in spending habits than GOP; a situation wherein the President would rather redirect the spending in conservative ways than cut spending altogether (and get hit with the "tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for the poor" 1980's meme vis a vis President Reagan).

Will GW shed a few conservative votes in 2004? Probably; but he'll pick up three for one in the center...and sweep in larger GOP majorities in the House and Senate...this plus the lack of any worry about re-election prospects will allow for a shift in spending.

Here is something to think about. It was a Democratic House that passed the spending bills under Reagan. Remember where such bills must start? There were plenty of more economically moderate and liberal Republicans in the Senate at that time as well. Thus the bills got through both even for the time when the GOP had the Senate. What has changed, for the Senate is closer than ever, and there are still several moderates in the GOP Senate, is the House. Where did these new GOP House members come from? The Democrats! They all represent formerly Democratic territory, and many were Democrats in political offices themselves! Some even voted for those spending increases in the past on the other side of the aisle! They are still conservative Democrats, only now in charge of the GOP! When the gains of the GOP come from those Democrats who hate weakness in military matters or liberalism in cultural matters than this is what you should expect, for the only reason they were Democrats to begin with is support for big government. There is no GOP. What we have is the Conservative Democratic Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, with the division being more and more what originally split the Democratic coalition to begin with. There are plenty of people who are culturally conservative and for big government! Guys like Bob Packwood can be the exact opposite! In building the new GOP, apparently us on the libertarian side really aren't part of the coalition.

Why is President Bush running as a conservative Republican?

Well, compared to Kerry he is... :)

Seriously, Ara. I recall reading recently that the doubltalk society for Grading Liberals* has granted Kerry a 96 rating lifetime, compared to Teddy's 93. The equivalent society for Grading Conservatives** apparently grade Kerry & Kennedy as 3 and 6, respectively.

Besides, "really nice guy who looks good in a flight suit and would like to be President" doesn't fit very well on a bumper sticker. :)

*Hell, I can't remember what these guys call themselves.
**Them either. These people have too much time on their hands.

Seriously, Casey, why is POTUS running as a conservative Republican?