So long as the Democrats are kept in the minority, they are unable to deliver on their promises. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
That is exactly where we differ. In the above example, you think if we win we saved 10 million. I think we lost 10 million.
I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. If you are in power, but allow yourself to get pulled by the opposition, you are potentially worse than a self-serving democrat. Case in point: Clinton would NEVER have gotten through the spending increases that Bush has.
I believe that if we got a conservative to the general election, we could win. Perhaps not a member of the most conservative portion of the party, but certainly far more conservative than we have seen. If we would just put a relatively principled person up there, and put the strength of the GOP behind them, I think we would lose some fence sitters, but gain some real socially conservative democrats. I am talking about the working class, churchgoing, taxpayer who does not seem to realize they are throwing their vote away on a party that fails to represent their beliefs. We could redefine the lines of battle. But instead we compromise with the left and spend billions on the weak-minded sheep who can be persuaded either way every single election.
I agree with maconservative on his point. With Clinton we got welfare reform and less spending than we currently have.
The opposition has more power than most realize. Sure they can't "get" their way all the time, but they can stop the party in power from doing just about anything. With that tool they can get parts of their agenda passed with minimal compromising (if they play their part right). If they overplay their hand then they're hosed.
BTW: The democrats got their education bill passed. But one may not realize it because after getting it they immediately said it wasn't enough. I'm still waiting for us to get our reduced gov't.