Replies

Yes, and on and on the spiral spins. The Democrats take us deeper and deeper into the slime pits of hell and when the Republicans manage to get in, they never have the strength to do much about it. Slow it down a bit (sometimes) is about all they've been able to muster, even under one of the best that's come along in a long, long while, Ronald Reagan. Well, I'm not expecting any miracles, but we do have a rare opportunity here. We have a very popular president (possibly a Reagan in the making) and we have a Republican majority in both houses. Now is not the time to go weak-kneed and wobbly and turn it all back to the socialist Democrats. We need to give Bush a filibuster proof Senate and an unbeatable majority in the House. It's the only way we can possibly hope to break the cycle and end the spiral.

I agree 100%.

But let me say this... it's easy to give Ronald Reagan credit for defeating the Soviet Empire. Only a Liberal could deny Ronald Reagan the credit for almost single-handedly winning "World War III"

But Reagan did something else, too. It's a more economically-technical matter, but it matters -- Ronald Reagan managed to hold the growth of Domestic Spending in line with US Economic Growth. That sounds very abstruse, but it matters. It matters, in REAL FAMILY finances. It matters because Reagan, at least, did not spend away Mommy's cancer medication faster than Daddy could earn it.

By the standard of holding the growth of Domestic Spending in line with US Economic Growth -- "not spending Mommy's cancer medication faster than Daddy could earn it" -- You know who was the Second most "economically conservative" President (after Reagan) in the Post-WWII Era?

Bill Clinton.

Was that because Bill Clinton was an "Economic Conservative"? No, it wasn't. It was because (at least for a time, until they destroyed him), we had a Newt Gingrich in Congress, telling Clinton to go piss up a rope.

That's why it annoys me to see Republicans in Congress give Bush carte blanche on new Domestic Spending. It annoys me to see FReepers treat Ron Paul -- our Hero in the Clinton years -- as a Pariah (maybe he is, indeed, wrong on the War. He's right on everything else).

I admit that there's a War on.

But let's be realistic. Reagan defeated the ENTIRE COMMUNIST EMPIRE while still holding domestic spending in line -- and he was up against Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, the Lion of the Democrats, not a bitter little Minority Leader midget like Tom Daschle.

For Bush to propose hundreds of billions in new Federal Education spending, hundreds of billions in new Farm spending, billions of Steel Tariffs, billions in "faith-based socialism", billions to triple Foreign Aid... this ain't "compassionate conservatism", it's just Republican Big Government (unlike Democrats, they will kill Terrorists. But just like Democrats, they'll spend away those Dollars you intended to devote to Grandma's long-term care insurance).

Bush ain't Reagan. And when he spends like a drunken sailor, there ain't no Newt Gingrich to tell him to go piss up a rope. The Republicans are giving him a blank check.

Don't get me wrong -- I remain in favor of "a filibuster proof Senate and an unbeatable majority in the House". If Bush can get his Judicial Appointments through, maybe us Pro-Lifers will have a snowball's chance in hell. And I'm in favor of that.

But I bloody well have to be. As the deficits approach $500 Billion, if "Compassionate Conservative" Bush does not cut back his obsession with spending other people's money, we'll HAVE to end Abortion -- just so we have enough newborn children to inherit $200 Thousand of debt apiece upon their first birthday, rather than much more.