LOL
Methinks you're quite irrational... President Bush has pushed more crap and winked at more pork than President Clinton ever did.
The people defending President Bush's record on spending do so only because they hated Clinton so much... get over it.
Yes, Clinton was a horrible president by any standard... with the glaring exception of fiscal policy because he had Republican House and Senate forcing one upon him. For President Bush, they same group has dropped trou over and over.
A LOT of people supported President Bush with money etc. because they thought it would get the spending problem in D.C. under control.
Not only has that not happened, but it's gotten substantially worse and for blackholes like the DOE.
Fiscal conservatives have no reason to turn out and support President Bush... and social conservatives have little more than lip service.
Given the record of the first term, the best President Bush can hope for from a lot of his previous supporters is that they vote 3rd party rather than for a democrat.
And spare me your screeds about DU and closet democrat, as I've pointed out previously, my voter registration and donation are public records.
If you have a problem, take it up with the RNC and President Bush.
Which of course will translate into a advantage for the jackass party. Face it in 92 a vote for Perot WAS a vote for Clinton. But, hey at least you'll have a clear conscience.
And spare me your screeds about DU and closet democrat, as I've pointed out previously, my voter registration and donation are public records.
????? Methinks you have me confused with another poster. I never said that. In fact, I agree with your assesment of GWB. We conservatives at least have a chance with the GOP. We have none at all with the jackass party and vote for a third party is a throw away vote which means advantage jackasses.
One thing about the left that the right hasn't figured out- they were willing to take thier gains in incremental steps. We conservatives haven't quite figured that out yet.
Let's understand the dynamic shall we? In 1993 Clinton *tried* the old Democrap tactic of pork-barrel politics, his 'stimulus' package, but Sen Bob Dole and the Republicans - a minority but a feisty one - stopped it dead in its tracks with a filibuster and sarcasm at the absurd pork barrelling in it ("fish atlases" et al).
The Republicans forced fiscal discipline on Clinton.
In 2001 and since, Bush has 'triangulated' between conservatives and the left on issues; here is why Bush is not a Reagan - Reagan didnt mind being the man pulling the whole rest of the debate rightward. Bush has this more political sense of having someone ELSE on the right flank. BUT WHO IS ON THE RIGHT FLANK ON BUDGET MATTERS? NOBODY! ... For President Bush, they same group [GOP Congress] has dropped trou over and over. This is why Reagan got even more stuff done with a Democrat Congress than Bush is getting now with a Republican Congress.
The fact is, Congress is by its nature not a fiscally responsible body. each of the 535 members wants to get its disctricts stuff first rather than worrying about the big picture. So, we have to conclude what is really missing is: PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP TO CUT SPENDING AND KEEP CAPS ON SPENDING LOWER.
Here we are, with the first "trifecta" of Republican Senate, House and President in 50 years, and we conservatives are not even getting crumbs of policy advances, except on the (already played out) arena of tax cuts ... TIME FOR US TO WAKE UP AND MAKE SOME NOISE.