[My2Cents]

But I didn't elect Republicans in order to get massive new entitlements.

Since when has "conservatism" meant pocketbook issues alone? Has anyone on FR who supports Pres. Bush actually ENDORSED huge new domestic spending?! No. They've all said there are other issues which trump the fiscal issues.

No disrepect to you, but I see so many conservatives that have their noses so buried in their wallets that they can't see the bigger picture. Some at least have the integrity to say, "I don't care for the spending, but Bush is the only choice considering everything."

As far as the feeble threats of the Trancredoites to write him in to "send a message," I related this to a friend of mine who doesn't come on FreeRepublic, and his response to the naysayers is, "Some say, 'I'm going to vote for _____ in order to send a message.' Translated into English, what they're saying is, 'I'm so stupid...'" Truthfully, the naysayers underwhelm me as very small minded people. I know we're not suppose to get "personal" in our attacks on people, but I can't escape this impression, that they're small-mindedness, and painfully shallow and nearsighted with such huge issues of war and peace overshadowing everything.

[prairiebreeze]

Agreed 2cents. IMO it's much more up to the Congress to trim pork out of the budget. They put 99% of it there in the first place.

The President has his pen to veto pork items. And he's also pushing for line-item veto to come into law.

The nay-sayers crave attention I'm convinced. They also tend to be so narrowly focused on a single issue and it's disturbing that adults can't step back and take a look at a larger picture.

Prairie

[Uncle Miltie]

My2Cents:

Since when has "conservatism" meant pocketbook issues alone?

A: Never. For me to take serious issue with a critical piece of domestic legislation does not constitute focusing on pocket book issues alone. I have a broad history on FR for all to read. For you to assume that money is my narrow focus belies an unwillingness to properly research before posting attacks by inference.

"Has anyone on FR who supports Pres. Bush actually ENDORSED huge new domestic spending?! No!"

Making my point that passing the largest liberal agenda item in over 30 years is a substantial flaw in this administration.

"They've all said there are other issues which trump the fiscal issues."

Agreed.

No disrepect to you, but I see so many conservatives that have their noses so buried in their wallets that they can't see the bigger picture. Some at least have the integrity to say, "I don't care for the spending, but Bush is the only choice considering everything."

Like: "Not that your wife is ugly, but..". Thanks for the non-disrespect, and non-attack on my integrity.

"Truthfully, the naysayers underwhelm me as very small minded people. I know we're not suppose to get "personal" in our attacks on people, but I can't escape this impression, that they're small-mindedness, and painfully shallow and nearsighted with such huge issues of war and peace overshadowing everything."

So if communism were implemented "with such huge issues of war and peace overshadowing everything," would we be similarly disallowed criticism by high priests of the Republican Party?

You cannot use the primacy of the war and peace issue to whitewash otherwise horrid policy. We can criticize the President while we support and vote for him. I refuse to be shut up by party hacks (no disresect intended) willing to implement socialism for votes.