[spinestein]

[That is some serious dreaming there. Conservatives have NO leader capable of winning the nomination. In fact, there none that could even get close. Much of the best conservative voices were eliminated from the Congress.]


What I posted is nothing more or less than an outline of the current OPPORTUNITY that exists for conservative Republicans. I made no mention of anybody's dreams or desires, nor of what I think of the chances of the opportunity being seized. For the record, I'm not too optimistic.

[Very few votes will be won on a plank of reducing the size of government. Although it is an ancient claim of almost all politicians since the very beginning that doesn't change the fact that government grows because the voters WANT it to grow and because society grows more complex.]

It happened in 1980 and again in 1884 with Reagan, and the country prospered under his deregulation of industry and significant tax cuts, and it happened yet again in 1994 with the contract with America resulting in more tax cuts, welfare reform (and reduction) and federal spending caps. They were elected on this platform, which can only be described as "smaller government". It's a winning issue to run on as long as the politicians follow through with their promises.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"It happened in 1980 and again in 1884 with Reagan, and the country prospered under his deregulation of industry and significant tax cuts, and it happened yet again in 1994 with the contract with America resulting in more tax cuts, welfare reform (and reduction) and federal spending caps." None of the above reduced the size of government. In fact, the irony is that reducing tax RATES can (and has) increased tax REVENUES hence giving the government MORE funds to use. It is also a fact that since about 1920 or so the share of the GNP devoted to government hovers around 20%. The variance is about 2% one way or the other.

Translating Rhetoric into Fact is much more difficult than one would think.