President Bush is a big-government liberal. Here's exhibit A.

And, by the dollars, Clinton is more conservative than both him and his father?

Yep. Sad but true. Scary to think that an elitist Liberal from Massachusetts might have been more fiscally conservative. All very depressing.

Once again you conservative republicans knew this before the election but you decided that gay marriage and swift boats lies were more important. This and Iraq were the bread and butter issues in the election of 2004. They were ignored. Now you got GWB and the neo cons for 4 more years. Smile you got what you derserve. The rest of us didn't.

I'm a Republican and didn't vote for Bush last election. Blame the folks from Jesusland.

Bush and the Republican party are big government liberals. The Democratic party is dominated by big Government leftists.

With regard to decisions not to choose Kerry, the Sodomites were a very small and less significant concern and the Swift Boat “lies” were not. The problem for me was that from a character and leadership perspective, Kerry did not cut the mustard. Have seen too much of his act to allow myself to be marginally complicit in getting him elected as President. If the Dems had put up a more moderate and sane candidate, might have gone in that direction.

I guess when you stack up the performance in the job for the first years - something that is tangible and can be evaluated vs. your perception of the opponents character, You went for failure over perceived "lack of" character.

On the contrary. If anything, the first four years of Bush's on the job results demonstrated that he was at least competent to handle the position.

NOTHING on Kerry's resume convinced me (and, apparently many others) that he was up to the task.

Throughout his public life, Kerry had proved only that he could cut it as an absentee Senator who understood the importance of marry well (read: wealthy women) .

Your sarcasm is noted. But maybe instead of the Democrats catering to the Bluest of the Blue Staters, they should start nominating candidates who are moderate enough to attract those fringe voters who may not be entirely happy with the alternative.

I understand your point but isn’t it a hell of a stretch to think things could be worst if Kerry had won. A reasonable scenario would have Kerry trying to change some of the damage Bush has done. He couldn’t spend more! He could look at Iraq objectively make decisions without worrying about how he lied previously. Gas prices wouldn’t be higher than they are now. We could have stem cell research. We would have at least an idea on fixing Social security. Shall I go on?

RC: I think the main post directly above this one speaks to why conservatives displeased with Bush voted for him anyway.

RC says that we should have voted for Kerry, because he wouldn't spend any more than Bush, and, as a bonus, we would get [more federal money for embroyonic] stem cell research. OK.

RC why the heck do you think that more federal money for embryonic stem cell research is going to appeal to the type of conservatives angry with Bush's spending? It's not like he's made your favorite misuse of human life illegal, he's just limited where federal money can go.

If someone is conservative enough to be angry at Bush for spending too much on education and medicine, etc., he wouldn't want to reverse the LIMITATION Bush has put on the FEDERAL MONEY going to EMBROYONIC stem cell research. Personally, I say: no federal money to medical research at all, let alone to research on the leftover parts of aborted babies.

As you've illustrated, RC, Dems refuse to understand moral conservatives. That's one of the major reasons Bush won again despite all his failures. You almost make me wish I had voted for him.

In good times (the 1990s) we could afford the luxury of voting on moral issues ie gay marriage,stem cell research etc. After 9/11 we needed to keep our eye on the ball. Bush has spend our fortune on Iraq, tax cuts and limitless spending. If interest rates go up we will be in serious economic trouble. If there is another threat to us we are seriously diminished militarily. Volunteer army enlistment is way down - Hello draft. Our Allies are running from us. And where is UBL?
Mr Flynn - Pre 2000 What on Bush's resume convinced you he was up for the job?

RC: Nothing.

RC: Bush may be spending a fortune, but to say that's a reason to vote for the extremely big-gov liberal Kerry is insane. The only reasonfor me would be the war, and Kerry is either a spineless schmuck who voted for a war he didn't support, or he supported the war for real. So why punish Bush for Iraq by voting for Kerry?

Besides, you say that voting on moral issues is a "luxury" "we" can no longer afford. Well, this is always what libs say about the moral issues cons care about. Then they keep pushing gay marriage and money for poor people's abortions overseas and embryonic stem-cell research. Libs always tell us not to sweat the small moral stuff, and then push push push.

Besides, compared to abortion and the sc's continuous power grabs, the economy doesn't matter. I'd rather have virtue and liberty than money. Wouldn't you?

On a pertinent note, John Kerry (not exactly the James Brown of the Senate), is AWOL again....

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=91183

So is there going to be a debate here or are we just going to talk about how Bush is a meaniepants? Cuz I can go to Huffington Post and see that.

RC, it is true that, the first time around, information regarding Bush's qualifications were obscure at best. Outside of reading everything available about him to get a bead on where he stood from a political and managerial standpoint, it was still difficult to "know" him.

But, two things: He was a relatively successful executive from a very large and diverse state and his political philosophies leaned more in the direction that worked for me.

That’s not to say that many of his ideas then as now are not compatible with mine (immigration for one). But, overall, he HAD to be the choice for me.

And again, as it has been, the Dems picked a looney Lefty like Al Gore as their candidate.

Can't really say much more about that other than they keep picking the jokers that appeal to the Blue East and West states. So be it.

Bottom line is that Americans are getting short changed (or maybe a dumbed down electorate get what they deserve??) and have few strong candidates available for the choosing.

Until that changes, it will continue to be the lesser of two dopes. Unfortunately.

My overall point is regarding the issues that should be relevant to the election in the time after 9/11 - The economy and our defense. Bush by any objective measure was a failure in his first 4 years. What do you have to do besides lie to the country and the Congress about sending the country to war, bankrupt us and have Oil price sky rocket to get thrown out of office?

I don’t know: maybe lie to the country about having sex in the Oval Office and perjuring yourself in a court of law? Does that get you thrown out of office?

There is scant evidence that the country was lied to about the reasons to go to war. The intelligence could have been better for sure but if Bush did lie to the country, then the majority of Congress lied to the country as well. Including the ‘Man Who Would be King’, John Kerry.

And if you’re worried about your prices at the pump, maybe you should be writing letters to some of your greener Democratic reps. in Washington who are obstructing oil exploration in this country.