Pat, appeasing liberals and taking their voters away are one and the same. It was Clinton-esque triangulation and never would have happened in a second term.

Absolutley pathetic.

Bush2 is the biggest failure in modern history. His imagined 'mandate' and 'political capital' and control of both houses allowed him to make no effort whatsoever to 'unite.'

And now that the abject disaster is laid bare for everyone to see, his apologists want to blame 'unseen forces' as having caused him to stray.

It would make a great absurdist comedy if you guys weren't apparently serious.

Tech, I'll makethe wild guess you felt exactly the same way on Bush's first day in office, which proves the futility of his even trying to placate the knee-jerk Bush haters. I don't know why he bothers trying, if he does. I know I wouldn't lose any sleep over sore losers hating me.

Whether this spending was done to appease the left or because he actually believed in the spending is open for debate. What is not up for debate is that this massive spending phenom is born of Liberalism/Socialism not Conservativism, so if it is truly offensive to you then you know where to go. We welcome you with arms wide open:)

Speak for yourself Lendaddy! :D

I don't think I've ever read more rubbish in one place ... now Bush's out of control spending is the left's fault. By bankrupting the country, Bush was only trying to pick up liberal votes, so it's the liberal's fault that he spent all that money!

Anyone that can engage in those kinds of mental contortions to support a failed presidency is beyond reason. And hope.

Stay the course

Amen.

Bush's out of control spending is Bush's fault, but it was the liberal/socialist influence (be it internal or external) that motivated him. We agree that he has acted much too much like a Democrat on spending.

No, it was placing politics over leadership. It was pandering to get votes, keep Congressional support, and get re-elected.

The out of control spending mirrors everything else this administration does.

With Rove sitting by his side in the White House, Bush is good at politics, and god-awful at everything else.

As irate as I am at Bush about spending, it takes two to tango and by law, Congress does control the purse strings. Bush has been too weak on veto threats on pork spending because he needs those guys' help on other issues. His political capital is not such that he can run roughshod over some of the most egregious pork spenders in Congress (and I'm not sure he would if he could). But his lack of even trying to rein it in is what drives me nuts. It will come back to bite the GOP in the as$ when the true believers don't bother to go vote in Nov.

So are you just giving constructive citicism to Bush on how to be a better conservative or do you feel that Federal spending should be decreased on the areas he spent it...Welfare/Education/health-care/etc..?

Combination of spending cuts and tax increases, daddy. It's not rocket science. Just ask Bill Clinton, he'll tell you exactly how to do it.

Oh .... and $200 Million/day in Iraq ain't helping.



EDIT: $200 Million/day, not $100 Million

EDIT 2: I can't even do the math. I think it's between $230 and $280 Million/day in Iraq, so far.

Wow, nice move; are you chanelling Rove or what?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 15 Mar 2006 at 12:04:10 PM MST is:

$8,281,089,977,958.67

The estimated population of the United States is 298,780,786??So each citizen's share of this debt is $27,716.27.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of?$2.10 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

For those of you that are defending Bush, I really would recommend you read this book. Its a quick read.

Bush is not a Republican.

He's a desperate opportunist. In addition to hurting our country, he's hurting the party he purports to represent.

You guys are getting caught up in an unessecary debate.

Opportunist

That says it all. Even Clinton didn't have his top political advisor at his right hand in the White House. And he was the grandest opportunist of all time.

Until this guy came along, that is.

You must have forgotten about James Carville first, then Dick Morris, then Bruce Lindsey.

Maybe I did. Correct me if I'm wrong. Neither Carville nor Morris worked for the government. Both were political consultants like Rove, but unlike Rove, neither were White Hose staffers.

Lindsey was a practicing lawyer that became White House Counsel. He was not a political consultant or pollster.

No political consultant/pollster has ever, to my knowledge, played a role within the White House anywhere approaching Rove's.

Rove is a political consultant that directs policy. That is unique to the Bush the White House, in the history of our country.

The results are evident. Win elections, lose the country.

Rodeo, please read Woodward's "The Agenda" and George Stephanopolous's "All Too Human". Those books go into great detail on the roles Carville, Morris and Lindsey played. It doesn't matter who paid them, though they were all on the gov't. payroll at one time or another. They all had a hand in policymaking and with Clinton, polls made policy. So of course, the pollsters were key.

So I guess you are saying I'm right? Neither Carville nor Morris were WH staffers?

And it does matter who pays them. When something has to pass over Rove's desk to reach the president, you can bet that he is the most powerful man in the WH.

It's unprecendented. And dangerous