A repudiation, but of what? [Big Government "conservatism"]

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Tex. ^ | 2008-11-10 | Michael Tanner

[fortheDeclaration]

The Republicans retained control of Congress for most of the 2000-2006 time period. If Bush, as the head of the Party, was unable or unwilling to restrain fellow Republicans in Congress from going on wild spending orgies, then his leadership is worth squat.

Amen.

It seemed that after the Amnesty Bill was defeated by the GOP, Bush had no concern about keeping the GOP in power.

[fortheDeclaration]

That's right. He locked us into a lot of spending, making it non-discretionary. Pardon me if I don't cheer.

Wasn't that Rove's plan to keep the GOP majority, to outspend the Democrats?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I doubt the slightest part In the long run he will support 100% of obammas legislation.

Oh, well. Just so long as it's not 100%, then. < /sarc>

[djsherin]

You bring up a good point. If we spend this much on an enemy with no conventional forces and we already spend more than every other country combined on defense, how much will we be spending if we get involved in a war with another country that can actually fight back?

[Jim Noble]

The American people did two important things in 1994.

They sent a large GOP majority to Congress to abolish the Department of Education. And in California, a large majority voted to deny free money to illegal aliens.

The representatives they elected to accomplish these simple tasks spit in their faces.

When the shooting starts, the genesis of the coming war will be seen to be the repudiation of democracy by the knaves who were elected to do the people's business, and who failed.

[The_Reader_David]

Among the few things that suck more than socialism run by socialists is socialism run by ‘conservative’ Republicans.

[fortheDeclaration]

You bring up a good point. If we spend this much on an enemy with no conventional forces and we already spend more than every other country combined on defense, how much will we be spending if we get involved in a war with another country that can actually fight back?

I think many Conservatives have a blind spot regarding Defense Spending.

It is a legimate function of Government, but Defense Spending can bankrupt a nation like any other spending.

Since we are leading the fight in the WOT, we need to let our allies fund their own defenses.

[djsherin]

I can’t see the justification for keeping hundreds of thousand of troops across the globe, especially countries like Korea, Japan, and Germany. We’re going bankrupt and they are subsidizing all their industries.

[fortheDeclaration]

I can’t see the justification for keeping hundreds of thousand of troops across the globe, especially countries like Korea, Japan, and Germany. We’re going bankrupt and they are subsidizing all their industries.

I agree.

It is time to cut them loose.

[IronJack]

Dismissing [Obama's win] ... won’t get us to where we need to be in 4 years.

Preaching to the choir. But neither will allowing this myth of a "landslide" to propagate.

Let's take this as the object lesson it is: conservatives stay home and Republicans lose. If the GOP runs RINOs, conservatives stay home. If the GOP runs RINOs, Republicans lose.

Acknowledging THAT reality WILL get us where we want to be. If a loser like John McCain can come within six points of the New Messiah, think how well a candidate could do if he actually got some Republicans to vote for him!

[E. Cartman]

“Bushonomics” will soon be joining communism on the ash heap of history.

[Gondring]

Wasn't that Rove's plan to keep the GOP majority, to outspend the Democrats?

Seems it.