I hear all this "Bush is a big spender" crap from people claiming to be politically astute, and it makes my blood boil.
The Bush presidency does not exist in a vacuum, and their actions come about as a result of other actions.
First and foremost, some people's model of fiscal conservatism must be Bill Clinton, look at his numbers, the man cut spending to nothing after the Reagan/Bush1 years.
Does that mean that Clinton was a fiscal conservative?
Let me draw a picture for you:
Let's say that we work for a company that owns one vehicle, and that vehicle is there to be used by the lead sales rep.
Bill Clinton is our company's lead sales rep for eight years, and throughout those eight years, all that Bill does is put gas in the tank, and oil in the engine when needed. Bill doesn't give the car a tune up, does not rotate or replace the tires, doesn't change the oil or replace the filters, does no maintenance whatsoever.
Bill retires, and you get the car. You realize that you need to tune this car up, change the oil, replace the filters, buy new tires, get new brakes. The boss hauls your sorry butt in the office to explain yourself; how could you possibly be spending ten times what Bill spent on this car?
Bill Clinton decimated our ordnance, and bankrupted our military personnel. If he had maintained our Armed Forces properly, and 9/11 never happened, Bush's spending would not have been an issue in this campaign.
But now lookee here -- we have a Republican president, a Republican House, and a nominally Republican Senate -- but we have deficits of $400B. I'm sorry it makes your blood boil for me to point this out, but it is true. And President Bush has cast not one single, solitary veto, in nearly four years in office. Not one.