[pfony1]

You said,

"These jerks have been telling us, "Just put us in power, and we'll take our country back to limited, Constitutional government that spends less and intrudes into your life less." Well, we did, and they spent more and intruded more."

It's just my opinion, of course, but I think the road back to "...limited, Constitutional government..." passes right through the Supreme Court. As long as we have activist liberal judges RULING, for example, that New York State MUST increase "educational spending" by raising taxes and RULING that environmental "concerns" can STOP any free-market-driven economic process or development and RULING that the goofy free-speech suppressing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill IS "constitutional" and RULING that illegal aliens are entitled to same legal protections (or more!) as American citizens, our freedoms are at risk.

This opinion leads me to say that I think it would be short-sighted for Republicans to forsake the needs and wants of "middle America" NOW in order to achieve some sort of "orthodox" ideological purity NOW -- and, as a consequence, return to minority party status BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IS DE-LIBERALIZED.

I remember that part of Ronald Reagan's "genius" was that he rejected the historical pattern: "Democrats increase spending; Republicans increase taxes." IMHO, Reagan's un-orthodox rejection of "balanced budgets" planted the seeds for the Congressional majorities that we have now (albeit with too many RINOs).

I think that, if political compromise NOW leads to a political majority, with the potential to add enough new Republicans to overcome the RINOs and ULTIMATELY make some much-needed changes in the Courts, the Departments and the Agencies, then I am all for political compromise NOW.

I should also mention that even "wasteful" government spending adds jobs to the economy. If the Democrats' fondest 2004 campaign wish -- that GWB had been the "only-job-losing President since Herbert Hoover" -- HAD been granted, then, instead of seeing President Bush nominate Judge Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor at the US Supreme Court, you might have seen President Kerry nominate Senator Kennedy for that pivotal seat.

I apologize if I spoiled your dinner with that image...

[mysterio]

Political comprimise? That's what you call it? The neocon movement has not comprimised. It has co-opted the "buy votes through federal spending" policy that used to be the mainstay of the Dems when they were in power.

You argue that we need to keep voting Republican so we can get a court that will declare CFR unconstitutional? IT WAS PASSED BY REPUBLICANS AND SIGNED BY BUSH!

How is a Supreme Court nominated by pro-big government statists going to be anything but pro-big government statists? Personally, I don't want Supreme Court justices nominated by either of these big government parties.

Wasteful government spending stimulates the economy? Well, gosh that makes me feel a whole lot better. I guess that makes it ok.