It’s a shame that the idiotic Foley scandal may be the straw on the GOP’s back, but I’m looking forward to divided government. Both parties are responsible for the failed Iraq policy (both parties voted for it and I see no reason to think that the Democrats would have done a better job of carrying out a mistaken policy), but only the Republicans get credit for the explosion of federal spending and the insidious undermining of constitutional liberties. They control both of the political branches of the federal government and they get all the blame for their abandonment of even the pretense of limited government.
Is this true even if the alternative, the Dems, are promising in EVERY domestic case to spend more?
I think the lack of lower-than-incumbent spending Reps in the Rep Primaries has been the biggest problem by the Lib-Republicans.
In 2004, some 24 mil. voters chose Kerry because of one or more of his economic programs/ promises.
Divided government might well be better on spending than the Reps trying to out-spend the Dems in order to get more big-spending supporting voters.
Perhaps future support for Iraq will be more in the form of loans, especially municipal loans to the safer cities — and much less “aid” (that teaches corruption so well).
I wouldn’t worry that the Dems promsie to spend more. It’s just a campaign promise, to be broken, and in any event the Republicans have proven that no matter what statist travesties the Democrats perpetrate, the Republicans can and will outdo them…all the while claiming they want to shrink the state.