[Guillermo]

I would agree with you, but let's make one thing clear:

Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits, trillion dollar new entitlements, limits on free speech and amnesty for criminal aliens, doesn't mean they "hate Bush."

[quidnunc]

Guillermo wrote: I would agree with you, but let's make one thing clear: Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits, trillion dollar new entitlements, limits on free speech and amnesty for criminal aliens, doesn't mean they "hate Bush."

(1) The deficit as a percentage of GDP is not excessively high, and

(2) since the people ultimately get what they want, a Medicare prescription-drug benefit was inevitable.

No politician can do anything unless he or she gets elected and frankly, doctrinaire conservatism will not get anyone elected on the national level.

[expat_panama]

"Just because one opposed $500 billion deficits..."

We agree that GW is not as good as he could be, but that’s not the choice in a two party system.

Do we want GW or Kerry? Let's start with spending. GW is simply not as bad as you say. In the first place, there was one year with a ½ trillion deficit, but your use of the plural is not true. Are GW’s budgets better for Americans than Clinton’s were or Kerry’s will be? Right now taxes are down, that’s good. So is both the debt and the deficit as a percent of gdp. With a two party system we don’t have third choices