Yup. Which is why I say that I've got severe problems with W, but he was the least bad option. To be fair, however, growth as a measure during the tail end of the Clinton "recession" is not an objective measure. Once tax-cuts and other economic stimuli took hold, you're then spending from revenue increases with less tax burden.
Nonetheless W has spent (gross oversimplification, I know)money like a drunken sailor, especially on education (WTF? We need to further entrench a failing education system and its typically-Liberal special interests?) and social programs. He ought to have vetoed a whole bunch of legislation, especially earmark-heavy bills.
But he's trying to be a "uniter"... and indulge the fetishes of his adversaries. Yeah, like the Left would ever give him a chance or any credit for anything he's done right or they'd support (remember all the kudos for increasing education spending by double digits? Me neither). There's never going to be detente with the Angry Left; W mollifies Howard Dean or Chuck Sc{h}um{er}. Foolish to even try.
ATEOTD, it comes down to Nat'l Defense, there's really no choice at all (assuming you're pro-National Defense
).
I'd have voted for Joe Lieberman, believe it or not.
JP