My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.

[Cigar]

I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.


I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I don’t have a vested interest here. Frankly, I think I’m at ground zero in the saga of Republicans closing their eyes to any facts or evidence that conflict with their dogma. Rather than listen to me, they threw me under a bus. To this day, I don’t think they understand that my motives were to help them avoid the permanent decline that now seems inevitable.

snip ...

But as the Bush 43 administration progressed, I developed an increasingly uneasy feeling about its direction. Its tax policy was incoherent, and it had an extremely lackadaisical attitude toward spending. In November 2003, I had an intellectual crisis.

All during the summer of that year, an expansion of Medicare to pay for prescription drugs for seniors was under discussion. I thought this was a dreadful idea since Medicare was already broke, but I understood that it was very popular politically. I talked myself into believing that Karl Rove was so smart that he had concocted an extremely clever plan—Bush would endorse the new benefit but do nothing to bring competing House and Senate versions of the legislation together. That way he could get credit for supporting a popular new spending program, but it would never actually be enacted.

I was shocked beyond belief when it turned out that Bush really wanted a massive, budget-busting new entitlement program after all, apparently to buy himself re-election in 2004. He put all the pressure the White House could muster on House Republicans to vote for Medicare Part D and even suppressed internal administration estimates that it would cost far more than Congress believed. After holding the vote open for an unprecedented three hours, with Bush himself awakened in the middle of the night to apply pressure, the House Republican leadership was successful in ramming the legislation through after a few cowardly conservatives switched their votes.

It’s worth remembering that Paul Ryan, among other so-called fiscal hawks, voted for this irresponsible, unfunded expansion of government.

Suddenly, I felt adrift, politically and intellectually. I now saw many things I had long had misgivings about, such as all the Republican pork-barrel projects that Bush refused to veto, in sharper relief. They were no longer exceptions to conservative governance but its core during the Bush 43 years.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

:happy1:

[Peter1469]

Bush was a liberal. No wonder this guy woke up.

[Cigar]

... well it takes some conservatives a little longer than some to smell the roses.

[Bigred1cav]

... well it takes some conservatives a little longer than some to smell the roses.

It isn't roses we smell it is the rotting flesh of freedoms the right wing wants to take from Americans. Their efforts to force religion and giveaways to business is classic Fascism.

[Mainecoons]

Gosh, and just who is it that is using the IRS and Department of (In)Justice to attack freedom of speech?

You must be on drugs constantly to post such crap.

[jillian]

Bush was a liberal. No wonder this guy woke up.

not even a little.

he was just a horrible president.

disagreeing with someone or knowing they were incompetent doesn't make them a liberal.

liberals don't stop government to interfere with the decision of a high state court that someone's spouse, in accordance with the law, makes their end of life decisions.

liberals stay out of women's control over their own bodies

democrats have better stock markets than repubs.

i'd go on, but i won't bother b/c it won't matter.

[Peter1469]

not even a little.

he was just a horrible president.

disagreeing with someone or knowing they were incompetent doesn't make them a liberal.

liberals don't stop government to interfere with the decision of a high state court that someone's spouse, in accordance with the law, makes their end of life decisions.

liberals stay out of women's control over their own bodies

democrats have better stock markets than repubs.

i'd go on, but i won't bother b/c it won't matter.

Bush was a big government guy. I.e. liberal.

[jillian]

Bush was a big government guy. I.e. liberal.

nonsense... liberal vs conservative has nothing to do with the size of government. you can't just change every meaning of every word to suit yourself.

[Chris]

It isn't roses we smell it is the rotting flesh of freedoms the right wing wants to take from Americans. Their efforts to force religion and giveaways to business is classic Fascism.

Odd when it's liberals who want big government and fascism is an implementation of socialism and you're the one always asking what liberties have you lost.

[Peter1469]

nonsense... liberal vs conservative has nothing to do with the size of government. you can't just change every meaning of every word to suit yourself.

Not true. Sorry.

[Chris]

nonsense... liberal vs conservative has nothing to do with the size of government. you can't just change every meaning of every word to suit yourself.

Yes, it's probably better to add a second dimension to one-dimensional political views and ask are you libertarian or statist...

http://i.snag.gy/InuXk.jpg

Bush was a statist, Obama more of the same.

What about you?

[jillian]

Yes, it's probably better to add a second dimension to one-dimensional political views and ask are you libertarian or statist...

http://i.snag.gy/InuXk.jpg

Bush was a statist, Obama more of the same.

What about you?

no. bush was an irresponsible dolt.

you can call him whatever you want. and then feel free to explain how he crashed the county and all indicators are massivly better now.

and while you're at it, you can explain how the last democratic president left the dolt a surplus that he screwed up.

we'll wait.

but thanks for your little drawing.

reality: conservative means... wanting things to stay the same

liberal: wanting to advance society

reactionary (read this one carefully) wanting things to go back to where you think they were in the past, regardless of reality.

[Chris]

no. bush was an irresponsible dolt.

you can call him whatever you want. and then feel free to explain how he crashed the county and all indicators are massivly better now.

and while you're at it, you can explain how the last democratic president left the dolt a surplus that he screwed up.

we'll wait.

but thanks for your little drawing.

reality: conservative means... wanting things to stay the same

liberal: wanting to advance society

reactionary (read this one carefully) wanting things to go back to where you think they were in the past, regardless of reality.

Nice vitriolic ad hom, now did you have an answer to where you stand? Do you know?

[Boris The Animal]

Jillian, along with the rest of the Leftist filth that have contaminated this country, will never be satisfied until all Conservative thought is destroyed.

[jillian]

Nice vitriolic ad hom, now did you have an answer to where you stand? Do you know?

if you say so... and we know how "accurate" you are in your assessments.

[jillian]

Jillian, along with the rest of the Leftist filth that have contaminated this country, will never be satisfied until all Conservative thought is destroyed.

hey chris, where are you now? where's your comments about this "person's" (and i use the term loosely") ad homs?

come on, dude... you can do it!!

[Boris The Animal]

hey chris, where are you now? where's your comments about this "person's" (and i use the term loosely") ad homs?

come on, dude... you can do it!!Whassamatta? Afraid of the truth, Leftist totalitarian?

[Chris]

if you say so... and we know how "accurate" you are in your assessments.

Compared to this vitriolic ad hom: "bush was an irresponsible dolt"? Just pointing out the obvious aspects of what you post.

I get the depth of your emotionalism, from your stringing disconnected opinions like that together, just don't see anything rational in it.

[Chris]

hey chris, where are you now? where's your comments about this "person's" (and i use the term loosely") ad homs?

come on, dude... you can do it!!

Odd from someone who denies their own constant ad homs to complain of someone else's? Hypocritical in fact.

[jillian]

Odd from someone who denies their own constant ad homs to complain of someone else's? Hypocritical in fact.

the only one who says that is you.

and it's an intentional effort on your part to disrupt discussion.

i can't help it if you have trouble coping with being shown your wrong constantly

but you do it to everyone who shows you up and who you disagree with.

so you have about zero cred.

[Chris]

the only one who says that is you.

and it's an intentional effort on your part to disrupt discussion.

i can't help it if you have trouble coping with being shown your wrong constantly

but you do it to everyone who shows you up and who you disagree with.

so you have about zero cred.

And so now you attack me for pointing out flaws in your post?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13176-How-to-Humble-a-Wing-Nut: "For wing nuts and their many fellow travelers, however, there is a serious obstacle, and it goes by the name of “motivated reasoning.” When people have a strong emotional attachment to their initial convictions, they tend to heap ridicule on anything that runs counter to those convictions and to give a lot of weight to anything that supports them."

[jillian]

And so now you attack me for pointing out flaws in your post?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13176-How-to-Humble-a-Wing-Nut

you keep telling yourself that.

you've never pointed out flaws in anything.

now do feel free to tell your buddies when they REALLY engage in ad homs.

because i can't be bothered listening to your nonsense anymore. either stop being disingenuous and running around crying "Ad hom" or bother other people.

[Chris]

you keep telling yourself that.

you've never pointed out flaws in anything.

now do feel free to tell your buddies when they REALLY engage in ad homs.

because i can't be bothered listening to your nonsense anymore. either stop being disingenuous and running around crying "Ad hom" or bother other people.


you've never pointed out flaws in anything

Oh I most certainly have. "bush was an irresponsible dolt." is just one of many examples. It attacks the messenger and not the message. Simple as that.

Suggestion, if you don't like having your logical flaws pointed out don't pepper your posts with them.

[Mainecoons]

Jillian, when one of your posts DOESN'T have ad hom is news here.

:grin:

[Chris]

Jillian, when one of your posts DOESN'T have ad hom is news here.

:grin:

We'll throw a forum wide party!

[jillian]

We'll throw a forum wide party!

projecting again, eh?

cute... but we know what you are, so it's ok.

and if you didn't do it to everyone who puts you in your place, you might have an ounce of cred

but you don't.

feel free to keep disrupting every discussion you don't like.

[Chris]

projecting again, eh?

cute... but we know what you are, so it's ok.

and if you didn't do it to everyone who puts you in your place, you might have an ounce of cred

but you don't.

feel free to keep disrupting every discussion you don't like.
More ad hom. Is that it? Tell us what you think ad hom contributes ti discussion?

[zelmo1234]

not even a little.

he was just a horrible president.

disagreeing with someone or knowing they were incompetent doesn't make them a liberal.

liberals don't stop government to interfere with the decision of a high state court that someone's spouse, in accordance with the law, makes their end of life decisions.

liberals stay out of women's control over their own bodies

democrats have better stock markets than repubs.

i'd go on, but i won't bother b/c it won't matter.

But other than Clinton a President that governed center right, they don't create jobs and the middle class and the poor suffer, I could post the current stats AGAIN, but why bother!

GWB was a social conservative and a physical liberal! Up until Obama one would say that he was a big spender, but now, not so much!

[zelmo1234]

no. bush was an irresponsible dolt.

you can call him whatever you want. and then feel free to explain how he crashed the county and all indicators are massivly better now.

and while you're at it, you can explain how the last democratic president left the dolt a surplus that he screwed up.

we'll wait.

but thanks for your little drawing.

reality: conservative means... wanting things to stay the same

liberal: wanting to advance society

reactionary (read this one carefully) wanting things to go back to where you think they were in the past, regardless of reality.


How did Bush Crash the economy again, I forget?

[jillian]

Not true. Sorry.

words have meanings
ib·er·al (lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)adj.1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

con·ser·va·tive (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn-sûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifv)adj.1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative

so you can say "sorry". but the definitions are the definitions. waking up one morning and trying to change them doesn't cut it.


and let me tell you what "liberal" doesn't mean... it doesn't mean anything you dislike

[Peter1469]

And that doesn't mesh with modern American politics. Sorry.

Look to the leaders of the liberals- they are Statists.

Most conservatives want liberty.

[jillian]

And that doesn't mess with modern American politics. Sorry.

Look to the leaders of the liberals- they are Statists.

Most conservatives want liberty.

no. it doesn't mesh with the distortion of language and terminology which is the hallmark of today's rightwing.

kind of like "libertarians" who want to legislate morality

goldwater is rolling over in his grave

[del]

Jillian, along with the rest of the Leftist filth that have contaminated this country, will never be satisfied until all Conservative thought is destroyed.

there hasn't been rational conservative thought in this country since goldwater died.

true story

[Peter1469]

no. it doesn't mesh with the distortion of language and terminology which is the hallmark of today's rightwing.

kind of like "libertarians" who want to legislate morality

goldwater is rolling over in his grave

It is the religious right that wants to legislate morality. Not fiscal cons, or libertarians.

[del]

Oh I most certainly have. "bush was an irresponsible dolt." is just one of many examples. It attacks the messenger and not the message. Simple as that.

Suggestion, if you don't like having your logical flaws pointed out don't pepper your posts with them.

except for the fact that bush was an irresponsible dolt, you're 100% correct.

only an irresponsible dolt would have enacted the patriot act, medicare part d and fought a needless war of aggression on credit.

[del]

And that doesn't mesh with modern American politics. Sorry.

Look to the leaders of the liberals- they are Statists.

Most conservatives want liberty.

name one

[jillian]

And that doesn't mesh with modern American politics. Sorry.

Look to the leaders of the liberals- they are Statists.

Most conservatives want liberty.

if you wanted "liberty" the right wouldn't make almost all of their legislation about telling women what to do.

nothing says "liberty" like a vaginal ultrasound.

[jillian]

statist is a word made up by reactionaries who hate the federal government.

thing is, the constitution establishes a federal government and allows it to do things like "act for the general welfare" of its citizens.

[Peter1469]

name one

All of the right wing politicians.

Your left wing stooges want statism.

[jillian]

All of the right wing politicians.

Your left wing stooges want statism.

sound and fury signifying nothing

[Peter1469]

statist is a word made up by reactionaries who hate the federal government.

thing is, the constitution establishes a federal government and allows it to do things like "act for the general welfare" of its citizens.

No, statism is a word that encompasses those that create a government program to solve all ills.

And BTW, the General Welfare Clasue is the preamble to the enumerated powers that Congress can spend tax dollars on. It is enumerated. No wonder American is in decline.

[Chris]

words have meanings
ib·er·al (lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)adj.1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

con·ser·va·tive (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn-sûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifv)adj.1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative

so you can say "sorry". but the definitions are the definitions. waking up one morning and trying to change them doesn't cut it.


and let me tell you what "liberal" doesn't mean... it doesn't mean anything you dislike

Correct, but words have meaning in context, and here we're discussing politics, and so you need to look up political means.

[Dr. Who]

It is the religious right that wants to legislate morality. Not fiscal cons, or libertarians.Sometimes the fiscal conservatives and the religious right are one and the same.

[del]

All of the right wing politicians.

Your left wing stooges want statism.

well if it's all of them, certainly you can name one, right?

i'll wait.

[jillian]

Now I'm confused. Most of the conservative members consistently post that the Feds should stay out of State business. Wouldn't that make them Statists?

yes, it would. although the term is still a made up word

more interesting to me is that the alleged "libertarians" are ok with legislating raping a woman with a internal ultrasound.

but it's not like that's a governmental intrusion or anything...

[Chris]

And that doesn't mesh with modern American politics. Sorry.

Look to the leaders of the liberals- they are Statists.

Most conservatives want liberty.

Exactly, word meanings change over time. Circus in Greek meant circle, in Latin a circular area for games, in early England a circular junction like Piccadilly, in American a three-ring entertainment.

We know too that liberal has changed from classical concern for individuation liberty to modern liberalism almost the opposite.

I suppose you could say conservatives want to conserve liberty.

[Chris]

no. it doesn't mesh with the distortion of language and terminology which is the hallmark of today's rightwing.

kind of like "libertarians" who want to legislate morality

goldwater is rolling over in his grave

Or distortions of left wingers who make up oxymorons like libertarians wanting to legislate morality.

[Chris]

there hasn't been rational conservative thought in this country since goldwater died.

true story

Where's the story? Why do you believe what you said?

[del]

Where's the story? Why do you believe what you said?

because i'm a rational human being.

[Chris]

except for the fact that bush was an irresponsible dolt, you're 100% correct.

only an irresponsible dolt would have enacted the patriot act, medicare part d and fought a needless war of aggression on credit.

Jillian, do you see how by backing up, by substantiating ad hom, you take it from emotional ad hom to rational criticism?

In fact you could remove del's ad hom name calling and just leave the rational part and it would say the same thing, have the same content an value.

BTW, del, I agree 100%, and will add NCLB, immigration and other liberal policies to boot.

[Chris]

name one

Bush, Obama.

[Chris]

statist is a word made up by reactionaries who hate the federal government.

thing is, the constitution establishes a federal government and allows it to do things like "act for the general welfare" of its citizens.

I thought earlier you argued words have meanings, now you contradict yourself.


In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of libertarianism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[9][10][11][12][13] Big Government, welfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism.[14][15]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

The word's been around some time.

[del]

Jillian, do you see how by backing up, by substantiating ad hom, you take it from emotional ad hom to rational criticism?

In fact you could remove del's ad hom name calling and just leave the rational part and it would say the same thing, have the same content an value.

BTW, del, I agree 100%, and will add NCLB, immigration and other liberal policies to boot.

identifying an irresponsible dolt as an irresponsible dolt is not an ad hom.

[Chris]

identifying an irresponsible dolt as an irresponsible dolt is not an ad hom.

If all you do is attack the messenger then it is ad hom. As I pointed out, you attacked the message, his record. Once that's done there's really no point to attack the messenger. It adds nothing to the discussion but an element of emotionalism.

Besides you have not demonstrated he is an irresponsible dolt. I mean, just because he pushed liberal policies doesn't make him irresponsible or a dolt.

[Bigred1cav]

All of the right wing politicians.

Your left wing stooges want statism.

Peter pray tell us what statism is?

[Chris]

Peter pray tell us what statism is?

Read much before you post, red? See post #52 for starters. Did you want to discuss it?

[del]

If all you do is attack the messenger then it is ad hom. As I pointed out, you attacked the message, his record. Once that's done there's really no point to attack the messenger. It adds nothing to the discussion but an element of emotionalism.

Besides you have not demonstrated he is an irresponsible dolt. I mean, just because he pushed liberal policies doesn't make him irresponsible or a dolt.

calling bush's policies liberal doesn't make them so. there is nothing liberal about the war in iraq or govt intrusion in the name of security.

your inability to recognize an irresponsible dolt when you see one is unfortunate, but has no relevance.

[Chris]

calling bush's policies liberal doesn't make them so. there is nothing liberal about the war in iraq or govt intrusion in the name of security.

your inability to recognize an irresponsible dolt when you see one is unfortunate, but has no relevance.

Nice ad hom, del, what kind of prize you want for it?

Tell us, del, where did Bush get NCLB and the Medicare Drug Bill?

[jillian]

I thought earlier you argued words have meanings, now you contradict yourself.

i didn't contradict myself at all. we have a particular government which bears no relationship at all to the one you think you want. why do you hate our constitution and the type of government it established? and since you do, why do you live here?




@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

The word's been around some time.

except it's meaningless the way pretend libertarians toss it around.

[Chris]

i didn't contradict myself at all. we have a particular government which bears no relationship at all to the one you think you want. why do you hate our constitution and the type of government it established? and since you do, why do you live here?





except it's meaningless the way pretend libertarians toss it around.

If words have meanings and statism is clearly a word the meaning of which has been posted then you are contradicting yourself in arguing it's meaningless. Q.E.D.



the one you think you want

Oh, tell me more about what I think, will ta.


why do you hate our constitution and the type of government it established?

But in telling me what I think, please don't make things up.



except it's meaningless the way pretend libertarians toss it around

Pray tell, how do they do that. Give us some evidence of this tossing around.

[del]

Bush, Obama.

bush and obama are conservatives?

on which planet?

[jillian]

bush and obama are conservatives?

on which planet?

i think he thinks they're interchangeable.

but if your goal is to have anarchy, i suppose they would be.

for people who actually care about things like the courts, and policy, that's obviously not true

[Chris]

bush and obama are conservatives?

on which planet?

Liberals. Not sure where you ever came up with conservatives, lol.

[Chris]

i think he thinks they're interchangeable.

but if your goal is to have anarchy, i suppose they would be.

for people who actually care about things like the courts, and policy, that's obviously not true

Not exactly interchangeable: Bush was bad, Obama is more of the same.

Hey, nice poisoning of the well, jill!

[Bigred1cav]

you keep telling yourself that.

you've never pointed out flaws in anything.

now do feel free to tell your buddies when they REALLY engage in ad homs.

because i can't be bothered listening to your nonsense anymore. either stop being disingenuous and running around crying "Ad hom" or bother other people.

Drug addict limpballs taught him that word.

[Ransom]

I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.

I believe a debacle would have been losing the House as well. The People voted for the status quo.


I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I don’t have a vested interest here. Frankly, I think I’m at ground zero in the saga of Republicans closing their eyes to any facts or evidence that conflict with their dogma. Rather than listen to me, they threw me under a bus. To this day, I don’t think they understand that my motives were to help them avoid the permanent decline that now seems inevitable.

You sound brilliant, Bruce.


But as the Bush 43 administration progressed, I developed an increasingly uneasy feeling about its direction. Its tax policy was incoherent, and it had an extremely lackadaisical attitude toward spending. In November 2003, I had an intellectual crisis.

How is that uneasy feeling now? With a tax policy just as incoherent, with an IRS proven corrupt....now taking the 5th in front of not a court of law, but We the People. How is your intellectual f'n crisis now in regards to "spending" Bruce.....when we've trillion dollar plus deficits?


Suddenly, I felt adrift, politically and intellectually. I now saw many things I had long had misgivings about, such as all the Republican pork-barrel projects that Bush refused to veto, in sharper relief. They were no longer exceptions to conservative governance but its core during the Bush 43 years.

Nevermind that you "felt adrift, politically and intellectually", Bruce. You sound adrift, politically and intellectually. You sound like someone who isn't grounded, who has lost his values and thus is adrift and without direction. The pork barrel projects that dwarf Bush's endeavors I can see leaving you without direction, you're adrift because you're intellectually weak, wishy washy, and a complete bore. No one cares how adrift you feel or felt or sound, you're whining.