Much as I love Lileks, these are straw man arguments. The problem with Bush isn't a proposed amnesty (which will never pass anyway) nor even a piddling few millions for the NEA. The problem is a $540 billion Medicare prescription entitlement and a humongous farm subsidy bill and an enormous education subsidy bill, etc., etc., all of which have ballooned the federal budget and the federal deficit by amounts which make Democrats look like penny-pinchers.
There's no excuse for such extravagance, not when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. The War on Terror is no excuse for repeated annual double-digit jumps in domestic spending.
The sad reality is that electing a Democratic President will probably cut the annual deficit and cut the rate of increase of federal spending, if for no other reason than the fact that divided government will create some well-needed gridlock. The other sad reality is that the best form of gridlock is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. A Republican President (e.g., Reagan), when dealing with a mostly Democratic Congress, will still tend to allow spending and deficits to grow substantially.
Really? Where have you been? These very topics have been all the rage amongst many so-called conservatives, in particular right here on Freerepublic. There are quite a few who think the Bush immigration proposal is the WORST THING EVER. But it's so easy to say, "No THOSE things we complained about that you refuted never really mattered, it's THOSE OTHER things we complained about that REALLY mattered." These are not straw man arguments just because you personally haven't made them. I have heard far more about the NEA than the "horrible farm subsidy".
There's no excuse for such extravagance, not when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House.
I assume you fault the Congress as much as Bush when it comes to the budget. After all, according to the Constitution, who is responsible?
The sad reality is that electing a Democratic President will probably cut the annual deficit and cut the rate of increase of federal spending
and increase taxes and add more liberal judges to the federal bench/Supreme Court and make sure leftwing extremists are appointed to the cabinet and destroy any hope of moral leadership for this nation and end the fight against abortion and guarantee the destruction of marriage and increase corruption and appease the terrorists and destroy the sovereignty of the United States and promote racial discrimination and enact industry-killing environazi laws....
Other than creating gridlock (this assuming the Republican Congress will remain and that they will be strong), what are the other benefits to having a Democrat president? Will a Clinton do?