That's false, Burke. Completely, totally false.
Chuck belongs to the Constitution Party, and spends more time on politics than preaching.
Kinda reprehensible for a so-called "Christian" pastor.
"With Republicans in charge of all three branches of the federal government, spending at the federal level now consumes some $21,000 per household every year. That's up from $16,000 some four years ago. In fact, federal spending has grown by more than 25% since G. W. Bush took office."
That's false, Burke. Completely, totally false.
It is hyperbolic, but not totally false. I seldom hear Republicans defending their core principles. Instead, most Republicans seem ready to abandon them at the drop of a hat. The Republican response to Clinton's (IIRC) seventh State of the Union Address was an example of this: for nearly every expansion of government Clinton proposed, the Republicans proposed a smaller version. Never once do I remember them they questioning whether the expansion was a good idea in the first place.
Abandoning principles while arguing specifics is a guaranteed-losing formula. After all, if the Democrats propose a $10B program and the Republicans pare it to $5B, how can the Republicans really defend their position? Since the Republicans support the program, it must be a good thing. So why wouldn't bigger be better? And of course, if the program is allocated $5B and has major cost overruns, how can the Republicans avoid blame, when they refused to allocate for the program as much money as was "needed"?
For whatever reason, Republicans consistently fail to defend conservative principles. Regardless of whether it's because they're really liberals in disguise, or just because they're incompetant oafs, their failures are numerous and consistent. Whether or not it's appropriate for conservatives to abandon the Republican Party, they should at the very least acknowledge its severe shortcomings.