[Rodney King]

And Lieberman has somehow displayed he's NOT in favor of big government?

Of course he's for big spending. The difference is that when there is a democratic president, the Republican congress does its job and stops the big spending. I used to be proud of our congress during the Clinton years.

[nicmarlo]

I used to be proud of our congress during the Clinton years.

Yeah, like the time that the House impeached Clinton but the Senate didn't oust him, that includes the pubbies, who didn't vote to get rid of him, either.

[oldvike]

Of course he's for big spending. The difference is that when there is a democratic president, the Republican congress does its job and stops the big spending. I used to be proud of our congress during the Clinton years.

Well said. I'm all for gridlock. The less that gets done in Washington, the better.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"I used to be proud of our congress during the Clinton years."

The Clinton years were pure hell. Bush will probably be more conservative in a second term because he won't have to worry about re-election. Plus with the prospect of Hillary as president after Bush the GOP will rush to get a lot of stuff accomplished. Michael Moore and all the Hollywood libs will pop an artery if Bush wins again. Won't that be wonderful?

[RJCogburn]

The difference is that when there is a democratic president, the Republican congress does its job and stops the big spending. I used to be proud of our congress during the Clinton years.

Right. There clearly is an argument to be made that we would be better off with a Republican Congress, for which I intend to vote, with a Dem President rather than the big government faux conservative we now have.

I have not accepted that argument yet, nor have I rejected it.