Do you blame him for getting us into the Afghan war also, or only the Iraq one?


You mean military spending specifically, or spending in general?

The war in Afghanistan wasn't one they wanted, so naturally it the one real consequence of 9/11.

I mean spending in general, though of course military spending is a huge part of that.

You mean you don't blame him for that one, as it was a natural consequence of 911? One certainly wouldn't have seen it coming on Election Day 2000.


What kind of spending other than military spending do you think Republicans are big on? General all-purpose pork (If you're saying that, I'd probably agree with you, though both parties seem so bad). Or did you have something more specific in mind?

NFM, what if you can't sell it to the people?

KT, I have two questions. What is your stand on war against Iran? Was this also in Bush's agenda before 9/11?

When you say "Under Republicans", or "Under Democrats", are you talking about which party held the White House? Or the Congress?

Federal spending certainly ballooned during the Reagan years. They tried to tell us that the government had less money because of his tax cuts, but I saw a chart in the New Zork Times showing that the Federal kitty had nearly doubled during his tenure, from about 500 billion to about 950 billion. The government simply spent all of the new money and more.

So, is that the Republicans' fault because they controlled the White House, or the Democrats fault because they countrolled the Green House? All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, of course, but the President has to sign them, which seems to make them both culpable.

The President submits a yearly budget, of course, but am I misremembering, or weren't all of Reagan's budgets rejected? I could swear that the Democrats used to hire an ambulance every year to take his budget to Capital Hill, as a way of showing that it was D.O.A.


What would happen if a President didn't play that game? I've heard McCain say that as President, he'd get out his pen and veto every bill with wasteful spending in it. He does have a reputation as a budget slasher, so he just might be serious. But if he did that, would people approve, or would they just blame him for being obstructionist?

The budget did seem better in the 90's, with the Republicans in the Green House and a Democrat in the White one.

Depends on how the story gets spun. With the right spin a heavy veto pen would be applauded. With the wrong spin, which is much more likely, a heavy veto pen would be viewed as obstructionist, insensitive, etc.

I imagine that faced with legitimate veto threats congress will simply attach veto-proof legislation to the crap. Very few in the general public will understand why critical legislation is being veto by the president when know one except the president is likely to talk about the attached pork.


I'll say it again....I vote my heart for the presidency. For congress I make my best guess at who will actually win the presidency and vote for the opposite party.

Well, there were some very interesting "political goings-on" over this past weekend in Europe and the Middle East that Joel Rosenberg talked about today, (Monday, July 14th, 2008), IN HIS BLOG.


Chess Fan

No, their interest was against Iraq. I think a war against Iran would be a big mistake. If it is going to happen, it should only be after real diplomatic efforts have actually been exhausted, something that rarely seems to happen these days. If Israel decides to start it, though, then I suppose we would have little choice but to help them. I think we should push hard to resolve the issue with Iran without letting it come to war.

I can't stand Congress, true, but I typically have to blame the person in the white house rather than Congress, because the American people have little patience for Congress. If Congress keeps blocking budgets indefinately then the people blame the Congress and not the President, so Congress will typically back down at some point. The President sets the tone for what is going on, and though a President rarely gets everything his way, he gets enough that it is what really counts. I do, however, think that recent Democrats have been particularly spineless.