I don't yearn for any such thing, and I have no delusions about the idiocy of Kerry and/or Edwards, which is why I will vote for Bush. However, it is an indisputable fact that spending growth is higher now then it was under either Clinton or Carter. I beleieve that after national security, that the overall size of government is THE most important issues, as the more people who live off the government, the harder and harder it becomes to fight further government intrustions into our lives. The fact is that with W as president, the Republican congress has been completley AWOL. Completley. Even they know it as evidienced by the comments at the recent Republican retreat.
Therefore, myself and others speculate that if a Democrat was President, spending would not be as bad. Notice none of us has actually called for Kerry to beat Bush, we have just specualted. If you all want to hide your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem with a Republican president being a worse spender than Clinton and Carter, go ahead. It's not doing the country any favors though.
I'm not so sure that the size of government is the most important issue, after national security. I think the moral fabric of the nation is another big issue. What was that about our form of government fit only for a moral, religious people? Sorry I'm no good at quotes.
But for moral leadership, George W. Bush or ? Democrats who care nothing about the slaughter of innocents? Who applaud the cultural and moral decline of this nation while ensuring that the next generation will be ever more immersed in their Marxist propaganda?
This is not to say that the size of government is unimportant. It is very important and should be one of the top issues for any conservative. Rather than gridlock, perhaps more conservatives in Congress? Because right now, most Americans like sucking off the government teat. They like it and it's reflected in the representatives that they elect. It's reflected in who got the popular vote last time there was a Presidential election. Putting a supporter of "government teat-sucking" in power will do little to alter the socialist course of the nation.
The fact is that with W as president, the Republican congress has been completley AWOL. Completley. Even they know it as evidienced by the comments at the recent Republican retreat. On this you are absolutely right. But isn't changing and influencing Congresspeople more significant than changing Presidents, if what you're looking for is a principled and determined Congress? It's not like Newt Gingrich will be in charge. Isn't it disturbing that they blame Bush for their own lack of resolve and discipline?
Notice none of us has actually called for Kerry to beat Bush, we have just specualted.
Actually several people on the thread have called for exactly that, and others have been saying it in other threads. "Gridlock" by another name is "Kerry for President". Those who support gridlock support a Democrat in the White House, and his or her minions in Cabinet positions.