[for-q-clinton]

The reality is, most people like their pet government programs, and don't really want smaller government. And most people don't like radical change. Shrinking government when people don't want it shrunk is a recipe for electoral failure. That's a lesson the Republicans seem to have learned. If they keep control of the purse strings, they have the chance to direct policy to encourage individual responsibility and individual choice. The long term effect of this would be to reduce demand for government.

Very good insight. I appreciate your post. As I mentioned I'm looking for reasons to vote for Republicans in 2006. And your response gives me some understanding of why we need to try to win (even if it means more spending). It's a long term approach.

[misterrob]

I'll vote for the person at the local level who has the guts to do the following:

1) Limit growth of government spending

2) Limit interference of government in business

3) Support a strong national defense

4) Vote for immigration law enforcement efforts

5) Carry out their Constitutionally Appointed Duties

6) Support efforts to reform SS spending and allow me some freedom to invest my own money like an adult

[malakhi]

It's a long term approach.

Exactly. The Democrats achieved what they did by advancing their agenda incrementally over decades. We likewise need to be willing to accept small victories and gradually steer things in the right direction.