For eight years, I valued principle over partisanship and castigated the Bush administration, for among other transgressions, fiscal recklessness. Now that Obama is president, there don't seem to be any liberals willing to take Dear Leader to task for the shortcomings they so viciously attacked George W. Bush for. If you thought it was irresponsible (and it was) for Bush to run up a $1 trillion dollar deficit, why wouldn't it horrify you that Obama is proposing a $1.75 trillion dollar deficit--which will certainly surpass the $2 trillion mark after off-budget emergency spending and other unforeseen circumstances? "Honest liberal" shouldn't be an oxymoron.

Just saw this at the LRC Blog from Anthony Gregory:

"In 2000 the U.S. Had a $1.8 Trillion Budget
Ten years later, that's the size of the deficit."

Yep, that about says it all.

I liked this one.....

"the House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month. Not only that, this spending bill represents an 8% increase over last year's outlays. The Democrats say they were needed to make up for cuts enacted in recent years or proposed a year ago by then-President George W. Bush in health, education, energy and other programs."

Another revenue grab making up for lost time?

And, the common sense numbers as to how we can't afford any of it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The new President has come up with a report document that contains everything you wanted to know about how he will corrupt the country called “A New Era of Responsibility – Renewing America’s Promise”

It reads like something that would have been written in the Soviet Union in the 50’s.

My favorite chapter? “Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities”.

Please remind me: when do the adults come back to run Washington?

When where the "adults" ever here? (I live not far from DC)

Personally, I would like most of the adults around here to leave - permantantly. And then I'd like the rest to stop acting like the rest of Americans are children that must be directed by the elite crowd that inhabit the halls of power here.

I hear that.

They are...

Wait, this is a trick question.

Seriously though, on MonsterQuest (HIST channel) the other night I heard a cryptozoologist claiming he had heard about 50 reports in the last 100 years. Despite numerous sightings and prints, the majority of the scientific community refuses to believe in the existence of the creature you mention.

Laugh well,

Sponge

Dan
You might have "castigated" President Bush, But words are indeed cheap if not followed by actions.
I doubt you voted against him in 2004 or against continuing his policies in the election of 2008. Regarding his economic policy, Bush jumped the shark when his tax cut policy wasn't effected by the reversal in economic condtions due to the 9/11, Iraq etc.

R.C., for me, Bush lost it when it became "unAmerican" to disagree with him.

But the biggest thing I noticed was the creation of Medicare Part D. That first year (an election year) the benefit was ONLY for seniors. Us disabled folks with Medicare were left out in the cold. Many of us saw this for what it was...Bush using taxpayer dollars to buy another 4 years.

All too often so-called CONservatives sacrifice principle to remain in power. One cannot get a "little pregnant."

I consider myself a traditional conservative, going back to the founding principles. I wrote in alternates rather than vote for a major candidate in 00 and 04.

The true conservatives never seem to get out of the starting gate anymore.

The majority of liberals love their country, I will never dispute that. After being disabled off and on for 20 years, I can tell you the government's programs do more harm than good. I was a liberal before I got sick.

Be well,

Sponge

Hear, hear, Sponge! My conservative convictions also led me to vote for Third Party candidates and against Bush/McCain in '00, '04, and '08.

R.C.: actually, public castigation of Bush by a conservative intellectual was not "cheap" -- it was not even cheaper than voting for or against him, which was indeed free and SECRET.

Also, did you vote for Obama? Are you going to criticize him for spending so much or for not withdrawing troops from Iraq? Do you regret your vote?

RC,

I have to second Get Real in that you are speaking moronically if you think that there was, and is, no cost to openly speaking and writing against Bush from the perspective of a public conservative. Dan doesn't have a strained elbow from patting himself on the back as he is too humble for all that nonsense but his merit on this score is plain to see.

So you seriously need to think about it more before you try and attack him as you do. You also should reevaluate your willing support for the fascist policies that Obama has detailed intending to enact. I am not going to pretend to guess what your core principles are but if they are worthwhile then ones then they should include honesty enough to give both Flynn and Obama their due; which does not mean gaping-mouth awe in the case of the latter or petulant disrespect of the former.

I'd really like to know when Bush made it 'un-American' to disagree with him. Does anybody have any proof whatsoever that Bush stated anything to that effect?

And I thought it was only the Dems that made $hite up.

Anyway, on another track, why do the Demos always work to subvert the United States? I mean, we know they do it, but do they not think that our principles and living in the greatest country on the planet is not a pretty good thing and worth protecting?

First, it's $4 Billion in the Democratic Payback and Spending bill (aka - Stimulus) for ACORN, a subversive corrupt group of anti-Constitutional scoundrels (O was a member - nuff' said). Now it's $100 million in the new omnibus bill for La Raza, a group who is sworn to the destruction of all things American and for the advancement of illegal immigrants.

With the reprobates we have in Congress pushing this stuff, this country is screwed.

asdf,

With all due respect, I never said that Bush made it unAmerican to disagree with him. However, Cheney's rhetoric from 02 on brought into question the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with the Bush policies about the war or the Patriot Act. I am sure Dan can attest to how he was treated for standing against the Iraq war (from day one). The Dixie Chicks are a bunch of loud mouthed jerks, but the way they were treated made me question the near Ceasarian following enjoyed by Bush for a time. Perhaps this was not Bush's fault...but as the leader of the executive branch, Cheney's remarks were Bush's responsibility.

And asdf, I am even more disturbed by the near messianic following Obama is enjoying. Most do not have a clue that he is bankrupting the country. But Obama says it will work, so they believe it will work and follow it blindly.

would you agree with me that we need a strong Congress to balance the power once again? Remember how well things ran from 94 to 00? We had a Dem President and a strong Republican Congress. The system of checks and balances our founders created worked beautifully then, and I crave those days.

Be well,

Sponge

Sponge

The unpartriotic accusation was not/is not thrown about because someone disagread with Bush. It is thrown at Americans who blame and continue to blame America for 9/11 or for anything bad that happens to us. The blame America first folks, which usually encompasses most on the left. Whose default position is America is evil.
Unpatriotic is also for those whose support for our troups is conditional on whether they like the president or if they agree with the particular mission the military are tasked with.
This whole "disagreeing with Bush is unpatriotic" myth was created by the left (and they've likely convinced themselves it's true) when they learned not everyone agreed with them and began giving them sh*%t for it.

Sponge,

I think people have forgotten the sentiment and the public mood once the dust settled in 02’.

For the most part, it has slipped the cumulative public consciousness that that dangerous time required difficult and some unpopular decisions by our leaders and many people, including those who at the time supported those decisions, forget.

People were scared and most were comfortable and confident, when GW took the lead, that we were in good hands. In 2002, Bush had the highest approval rating of any president during a midterm congressional election since Eisenhower.

So, it’s not surprising that he would be considered “near Caesarian” and as I recall it was the public in general and the media at the time that were so overwhelmed with patriotism that any attempt to disagree with the president was met with surprise and defense of his policies.

But now, as we are all witness, people have come down to earth and Bush is evil and blamed for everything including the disappearance of the Lindbergh Baby.

With regard to Obama, not only is he bankrupting the country but he appears to be working to decrease our standing and reputation in the world. I’m not convinced this is not part of the plan. And as the imbalance of the one party majority accompanied by the president’s apparent disregard and disdain for the Constitution, I see things getting much worse and out of control.

Let's hope we have something left by 2010.

I'm sorry to say that honesty among all people has taken a hit as our society has become more complicated and cynical and the faster things move, the more difficult it seems to not be, by degree, dishonest.

The other day, I was talking to my conservative sister who is dating a very liberal guy and because of their political and philosophical views on life are going to be calling it quits. We moved on to speak in general about the differences between liberals and conservatives. Nothing groundbreaking here, just some well used observations.

For the most part, I think it can be agreed that liberism is based on 'feelings' and how one would like the world to be but not how it really is. I think when you take that view; the only way to skirt reality is the lie to yourself and to others, as your philosophies are based not on the facts but twists of the truth to make up facts that fit your position.

Being a conservative generally requires that one be set with both feet in reality and an understanding in things as they are. So it’s easier to be honest in your general approach to life and convictions when those convictions are based on what is fact and not in what is hoped for.

In that regard, for all of those liberals who believe in ‘hope’, I would say that is itself dishonest as that is what you have when you don’t want to consider reason and don’t have a plan.

People need to tell the libs in my NFL forum that they "couldn't speak against Bush" the off-topic conversation on the reasons for invading Iraq filled days until the forum moderators cut it down. Actually, people need to tell that to the conservatives, because the libs started to float the line when it became popular. They know this because after Hillary made her screach saying that conservatives can't call it "un-American" to speak out against the administration, libs started using the idea to castigate conservatives for asking who the hell she was talking about.

I don't buy that the libs on that forum ever shut up--sure they were called "un-American" by people who believed they were un-American--otherwise known as somebody speaking their opinion. But they kept saying that they wanted America to lead morally, and that the lack caused 9/11 in the first place ("chickens coming home to roost").

As far as the Dixie Chicks, who cares? Celebrities think way too much of their political opinions. And it probably was equally a way of telling performers who share their opinion of the president in a foreign country to shut up as it was about saying anything against Bush. Private citizens decided to boycott their stuff, BFD.

It was really funny, after months and months and months of liberal claptrap and inevitable allusions to Hitler, they were saying that they felt they couldn't speak their mind.

Broke?... Oh, bummer!!

Perhaps the current economic crisis will wake people up to the dangers of the Federal Reserve Board -- why blame or credit the success of the economy just on fiscal policy? -- and Ron Paul may have a shot in 2012. So what if the Democrats lose in 2010 or 2012? The Republicans are likely to be worse than Obama; just as Bush was worse than Clinton.

Perhaps the current economic crisis will wake people up to the dangers of the Federal Reserve Board -- why blame or credit the success of the economy just on fiscal policy? -- and Ron Paul may have a shot in 2012. So what if the Democrats lose in 2010 or 2012? The Republicans are likely to be worse than Obama; just as Bush was worse than Clinton.

Let's see if we can name all the honest conservatives:

1) Dan Flynn
2) Pat Buchanan
3) Ron Paul
4) Thomas Fleming
5) Peter Brimelow
6) Charley Reese
7) Paul Craig Roberts

That's off the top of my head. But for a movement that spans talk radio, magazine publishing, Fox News etc. it's a terribly small and insiginicant list. In fact the only prominent conservative that has been honest is Pat Buchanan.

Glen Greenwald has been criticizing Obama recently, so he may count.

Wilds,

Don't forget Joe Sobran, Daniel McCartney, Jack Hunter, John Derbyshire, Dick Armey, Walter Williams, Doug Wead, Paul Gottfried, Tom Piatak, Stan Evans... I could also name many right-liberterians who would eschew the conservative label but fit under what I consider the larger conservative umbrella.

But your point that there are few honest conservatives nowadays is on target.

Okay, well I wouldn't include Dick Armey, John Debryshire, and Walter Williams because they all supported the Iraq war, even though they later had second thoughts.

Though your point is correct that there are many conservative and libertarians who were against the Iraq war they are not really part of the conservative movement. Their influence is negligible.

Not a very stellar start for a legitimate third party. But I'm with you guys if you ever get it off the ground because I think you can kiss the GOP goodbye. In fact, it was given a good smack to finish it last year.

Armey was initially opposed to the war, and reluctantly went along when the "evidence" was presented. He later angrily confided that he was hoodwinked. In my mind he should have opposed it even with the "evidence," on constitutional grounds at least. But he has been much more solid that 95% of the rest. I would definitely place your top ten above him, though.