Replies

It's a slogan. No president has actually cut the size of the federal government since Calvin Coolidge in 1924. And no president will, because the American voters do not want a smaller government.

I see. So Reagan cutting the government's share of GDP means nothing to you as does Bush running it up - all that matters is they wear the label "conservative", even if that means it disguises actions which could hardly be described as such in Bush's case. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such stupidity and mendaciousness.

I did not "attack" Reagan, Ivan. I posted some facts about his administration that put it in perspective relative to things Bush has done.

Rubbish. You have attacked Reagan on this thread, as anyone with eyes will notice. And you did it to bolster your hero. I can't begin to describe my contempt for this kind of tactic. You ought to be damn ashamed of yourself.

You're willing to write off Bush completely (and your heroic Prime Minister) because you have a notion that Reagan somehow embodied conservatism better than Bush does.

Now you're lying. I have been a staunch defender of President Bush on the Iraq War and much besides. I have had enough of his spending policies, and this Harriet Miers episode has shown in stark terms that when he makes a mistake that his defenders will stop at nothing to smear those who have doubts about his wisdom in this instance. You are a perfect advertisement of why conservatives turn against Bush - this haughty, holier than thou attitude which suggests Bush does little wrong is absolutely terrible, and what is more is that now you're defining greatness down with your spin against Reagan. Go to hell.

Reagan was, and Bush is, a pragmatic politician. Both men compromised to get some things done. Neither is an "all-or-nothing" conservative, as are some on this website.

Reagan was pragmatic, because he had something that Bush didn't have to contend with - a Democrat congress constantly blocking him. The Republicans are in control of both Houses, they control the Executive. If we don't have all now, when will we? If a Republican Legislative branch and a Republican President can't put the stop on excessive Federal spending, who will? If they cannot, then there is no point - all the arguments we've had with the Left are entirely meaningless, it's just a matter of spend and tax now, or spend, borrow now, and tax later.

That's how they got elected president, and why the uber-conservatives will never get elected to anything.

You have sold your soul. Power means more to you than principle. God help you.

Ivan

>>>>>>>>>If we don't have all now, when will we? If a Republican Legislative branch and a Republican President can't put the stop on excessive Federal spending, who will? If they cannot, then there is no point - all the arguments we've had with the Left are entirely meaningless, it's just a matter of spend and tax now, or spend, borrow now, and tax later.

This is exactly right.

You have on your rose-colored glasses regarding Ronald Reagan. You haven't refuted a single fact I've posted about Reagan, including the fact that he did not shrink the absolute size of government, though you try to mask that fact by couching it as a percentage of GDP, yet you stomp your feet and act as if I've committed some cardinal sin by posting them.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, and George Bush still has the plenty of time to be one, with his WOT firmly a part of a great legacy.

But, both are men, and both have made mistakes.