Because he's not a conservative. His 2000 campaign phrase "compassionate conservatism" simply means "I want single-issue anti-abortion voters to vote for me, but I'm not actually a conservative at all".

He has a cunning plan?

Good one, Michael.

You're right, Stephen. It would be so easy for him to do this.

Republicans didn't just TRY to give Clinton the line-item veto, they DID give it to him. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, declared it unconstitutional on separation-of-powers grounds. But Bush doesn't need official line-item veto power, because he can get it de facto. How? Tell congress that the current system, which calls for only 13 spending bills for the entire $2.5 TRILLION budget, is unacceptable. And it is. It makes it practically impossible for the President to veto one of them, because each one is so large and applies to such a large portion of the total budget. What he can do instead is limit each spending bill to a specific number of line items (say, 10? I don't know how much paper space a line item might use, but limit it to a manageable number), and any bill that contains more is automatically vetoed without even reading it. And any line item that covers more than one expenditure results in the entire bill being vetoed. This way, if you veto a spending bill, it's real easy to explain it to the country: "I vetoed this spending bill because I don't think it's proper to give Sam Donaldson a $100,000 mohair subsidy."

Another way: any expenditure not authorized by the Constitution gets vetoed. Since that would eliminate almost all, if not all, of the mandatory middle-class entitlements, our deficit problems would be solved right there.

Scott Rasmussen is now reporting a 72% approval rating for George W Bush... FROM HIS OWN PARTY!!!

I think the answer is pretty straightforward, actually. It's vote-buying, plain and simple. The Republicans have transformed themselves from an essentially conservative party to a populist one. Deep down, the Republican leadership does not believe the party can retain power without doling out the goodies.

Of course this isn't exactly new, either. I was having a conversation with another demoralized conservative the other day who asked me, "Remember the good old days, when Republicans actually *cut* spending instead of accelerated it?" "No," I replied. "I remember when they *talked* about it, but that's about as far as it went."

He was the same kind of governor for Texas. I have never understood why the Dems hate him so - he is moderate enough that they should be able to get everything out of him they want.

Bush never was a conservative. How many times have I said that since 2000?

He's as moderate as you can get. He signs anything congress sends him, conservative OR liberal, and only pushes for sensible tax policy (less taxes = more growth = more revenues).

His "compassionate" conservatism was that he'd sign any education bill the liberals threw together and any entitlement the worst spenders could come up with.

That AIN'T conservative. Of course, that doesn't matter to the let, who still hates him no matter how many liberal boondoggles he signs into law, because he isn't expressly democrat.

Bush is the LAST guy to "grab" any initiative on the fiscal side of conservatism.

"Who doesn't love watching smalltime politicians getting spanked for bad behavior?"

Oh, the images in my mind. Make it stop!!!!!

Of course, Reagan did try to veto a Highway Bill for spending more than he requested. Bam, overridden. Getting between Congress and their highway pork is very difficult.

Of course, all pork is important to someone. One man's pork is another's silk purse.

Well, if Congress is kept busy RE-passing bills they've already voted on, that will at least slow down the gravy train a little.

The Republicans have transformed themselves from an essentially conservative party to a populist one.

And if you're the President in the first years of what will probably be 20 years of global unrest, economic instability and terror tactics on the part of a variety of groups, you might think that is a small price to pay for keeping the country more or less behind the war effort -- or at least keepign opponents from seriously hamstringing your ability to continue to prosecute that war.

"Deep down, the Republican leadership does not believe the party can retain power without doling out the goodies."

Scary thought - what it they are actually right? Since they know that the Dems WILL dole out the goodies, they feel they have to keep up - the question is, are they underestimating the electorare or are they reading it just right?

Discuss.

For God's sake, someone buy Bush a veto pen!

Holdfast:
The popular (as opposed to Congressional) success of the Coburn stuff, and, for example, Neal Boortz's Fair Tax book, suggest that not everyone is as clueless as the elite-types assume.

I suspect they're underestimating.

Anyway, Bush can't buy Dem votes no matter what he does; he's trying to approach it with logic, whereas to the Left it's a religion. Handouts don't net him D support. Fiscal restraint might let him hold onto some Rs. So if he is trying to use goodies to win votes, he's doing it backwards.

Incidentally, I do assume that you know that the budget deficit went from 3.6% to 2.6% of GDP this year. They just released the final 2005 figures. (Fiscal year ends in September.) I'm not sure that'll stop people from talking about the flood of red ink, but 2.6% is much closer to the historical average.

john t:

you're right. that's cause the tax cuts (that the repubs aren't defending) along with a few other things (like the economy recovering from massive attacks against the financial center of the country) have resulted in monstrously large tax receipts. As in so insanely freaking huge that they have temporarily outpaced the cretins ability to spend it all.

Not cause of Bush's work.

I love the guy cause of his work on the war. Also, he's not JFKerry or manlike substance gore. But he's done a pisspoor job on reining in entitlements (aka he's gone the wrong way by surrendering on SS and increasing Mediwelfare), trade promotion (doha, farm subsidies, steel, ad nauseum), regulation, tort reform, absestos reform. He also has not done anything recently in GWOT. Seriously, in 4 years all we can do is take out two countries that barely qualify for the name, one where we conquered mostly through 200 guys on horseback, some bombing, and unshaved CIA/Specop dudes with a few hundred million dollars in duffel bags, the other being one that had been under daily bombardment for 10 years and had been rolled up in 100 hours 12 years before. Iran, North Korea, and Syria still exist under their previous rulers, while the al-Sauds shit on their golden thrones.

I'm a libertarian imperialist and will not be happy until Steve Forbes is saying that our taxes are too low and we need additional social spending while we have monthly triumphs for generals and admirals who are escorted down pennsylvania avenue and/or fifth avenue by bedraggled and unkempt jihadis captured around the world (Communist dictators and guerillas are also acceptable, especially if they answer to the name Hugo or Fidel).

Seriously, whats the point of a global imperium if you can't bring the barbs to heal immediately. The Dems (THE DEMS!!!) managed to conquer the world (with help of the anglosphere) in 4 years against serious opponents who were better armed and more experienced than the US. Why not go to a full war footing and take over every country that directly threatens us? Shouldn't be too hard, as compared with WWII, given that the country has the best trained, equipped, and motivated military, and could kick out some serious materiel if the hammer went down. Armadas of planes and carriers 2 or 3x larger than WWII but made of f22s, JSFs, Reagan class, plus ballistic and attack subs, Ospreys, Comanches, armored Humvees, Abrams, Crusaders, new B2s, replacements to the BUFF, AC130s.....

Remember that we won WWII despite having massively inferior equipment. Our current equipment is insanely old and is beyond best in class, while the new stuff is getting axed because its TOO GOOD.

If we elect Ann Coulter for president, or maybe Larry Kudlow, we could get the deal done. Then see a real Pax Americana.

I am not really sure why there is a segment of the population that is so up in arms to have the coalition out of Iraq before the job is done. I don't like war at all and soldiers probably like it even less. To leave before the job is complete would be the stupidest thing anyone could do. We'd only have to go back again latter and if the job is not done right next time we will have to go because al Qeadea or Iran has smuggled a nuke into Israel or North America.

In America last year the FBI reported that the number of police officers killed in the line of duty was 127, so in the four years that we have lost 2,000 soldiers (Who I see as really policemen in what they are doing.) the number of domestic police in a country at peace with its self (America) killed by the criminal element is about 500 or 1/4 of the number killed off shore during a major war and they volunteered. (+How many civilians in America were killed by criminals during the same time?)

These anti-war people are the real reason this war is taking so long. AND if through out history we listened to them we'd have slavery in America, with the Gestapo fighting the KGB for control of the gulags and concentration camps with the mullahs flogging our women and forcing them to be homosexuals. I get the feeling JFK disagreed with his father about WW2.

AND furthermore SHAME ON YOU democrats and republicans of the turncoat bent who do things like reflecting in the polls for example, holding Harry Truman to a 23% approval rating during times like those and these.

I say "Let them eat bark like they do in North Korea for awhile, until they come to their senses."
.