"Wild Socialists" or "liberal Democrats" wouldn't have killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have killed the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have gotten the 1st largest and 3rd largest tax cuts in world history passed into law, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't arm pilots or order Aschroft to inform the U.S. Supreme Court that the official U.S. government position is that the 2nd Amendment supports individual rights to bear arms, not group or state rights (soemething that was too Conservative and controversial for even Ronald Reagan to do).
Liberal Democrats wouldn't sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, either, but Bush will sign it this very year.
So comparing Bush to "liberal Democrats" or "wild socialists" misses the mark. Your complaint, which is a valid one, is actually that Bush is letting Congress spend too much. Well, that's all fine and well, but someone should simply *say* that, rather than confuse the spending issue with being a "wild socialist".
Once the conversation is accurately focused on Bush letting Congress spend too much, then a real debate can proceed.
What is Bush getting for this spending? Two conservative Supreme Court Justices, one would think (perhaps even three), as the Justices won't survive another 6 years of Bush being in office (and Bush will easily win re-election in 2004 due to his current strategy). Bush also gained the right to fire bad teachers in Ted Kennedy's education reform package, and Bush is getting tort reform passed that immunizes gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among others). Bush has carte blanc to re-vamp our military, too.
It's a good bet that Bush will get Social Security privatized in the next 6 years, as well as get school vouchers passed so that the power of the public school teachers' unions will be broken by private schools. Bush is also getting our ABM system installed in Alaska.
These are **historic** achievements, and the history books will marvel at how one politician was able to accomplish so much with the government and nation so evenly divided.
Consider that after 8 full years of Clinton, old Bill still can't point to any positive legislative achievement (of his own). What a contrast between those two Presidents!
But there is a price to be paid. Bush is buying Congressional votes with our tax Dollars.
Lots of Conservatives may have very valid reservations about this price, and that's a fair topic to debate.
But you are calling Bush a wild socialist, while that's clearly not true as no "wild socialist" would sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. What you actually mean is that Bush is spending too much of our money.
Well, how much would 30 years of a future *conservative* Supreme Court worth?! The Socialists in the Senate aren't filibustering Bush's judicial picks because they're too far to the Left, I assure you!
How much is protecting our nation from nuclear ICBM's worth?!
How much is it worth to re-vamp our military and kill the Kyoto Treaty?
Let's debate those real issues. What are we willing to pay to achieve these things in a divided nation with a divided Congress?