The End of Liberalism …NOT!

Conservatives like Joe Scarborough, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and others are using the troubles of the Affordable Health Care Act to push their message that liberalism and government does not work. In their minds, the two go together as a package.

The Republican Conservative machine like Fox News, talk radio, Frank Lutz and politicians are spearheading this message, not your FB Republicans, relatives, or tea party uncle, because they are merely parroting what they hear.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy because if they can get elected based on being anti- government, everything they do to disrupt government progress is a plus. They run on a platform of smaller government and never on efficient government. For example, the FDA may be undermanned but TSA may have too many people working for them. I’ve always found that 16 intelligent gathering agencies make them less efficient.

It’s worth mentioning again, Conservatives are great campaigners, but they suck at governing because it goes against their principles. Their main goal is less government and more free market, but they just want government to protect our country and deliver the mail. They’re doing everything possible to take mail delivery away from them. If that’s the case do we need all those congressmen? The non-libertarian conservatives do want big government when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

We should never underestimate conservatives because they wake up, eat their breakfast cereal, drink their cup of coffee and their minds instantly switches into gear thinking of ways they can indoctrinate the whole country. They eat, sleep and drink this ideology, and it’s as much of them as their religion is. Joe Scarborough is a great example of this, just this morning he introduced Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia as being a great conservative model despite the fact that the governor is mired in a bribery scandal.

On the other hand, Liberals/Progressives do think that government has a role to play, but they’re more compromising. For example, the public option and single payer were not a viable option in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. They settled for universal health care using expanded Medicaid and private insurance companies. Liberals/Progressives do take a firm stance against the voucher system, whether it be in education or Medicare because they see it as a first step toward privatization. I’ve always said that government is the equalizer.

It’s getting a bit confusing because conservatives of all stripes are trying to take the dominant position of the political party they chose to participate in. The old established Republicans talked of small government but expanded the defense department. The new tea party Republicans wants smaller government, but their method puts a choke hold on growth.

Right now, there’s a total distrust in government; unfortunately that will eventually lead to economic failure. Is that the goal of conservatism?

NO Apologies Needed From The “Holier Than Thou"

A poster named Rosalie Sykora wrote a tongue-in-cheek letter to our editor titled “An apology to liberals for conservative views.” I have no doubt that Rosalie is a decent, god fearing, Christian conservative but it’s views like hers that make me keep my politics secular. When you interject religion into politics at the scale that she does; it leads to a situation like we are seeing in Syria and Egypt.

Bless her heart, Rosalie may have forgotten “Matthew 6:1-34

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven”

I haven’t seen a comparison between liberals and conservatives like she described in a very longtime. It’s as if they look up all the good words in the dictionary and applied it to conservatism and left all the bad definitions to describe liberals.

Rosalie, I certainly don’t back away from supporting black leaders and civil rights activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they are fighting for justice and equality. I certainly am an admirer of the Clintons and President Obama. Like many other legislators, I’ve sided with and have been against the views of Charlie Rangel and Sheila Jackson Lee. You didn’t mention San Diego mayor, Bob Filner, but I believe he belongs in jail and I’m glad that the DNC, and the California Democrats are actively trying to run him out of office. Anthony Wiener needs to grow up and the voters of New York will send him a message. I don’t know what Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, has done to be ashamed of. She was on the staff of Hillary Clinton and is a political consultant, but maybe the fact you don’t like her is that she’s a Muslim.

I don’t think Pope Francis judges any one by their ideology or political affiliation, and I’m fairly certain Mother Theresa would not have either.

I noticed that you mentioned visiting a church and synagogue, but you left out a mosque; was there a message there?

I admire Antoinette Tuff and I don't know her political affiliation or ideology. In case you don't know her (she hasn't received much publicity) she's the good person without a gun who beat a person with a gun that was about to shoot some school children in Georgia.

I commend you for reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but those two documents belong to Christians and non- Christians. I keep those two short documents on my iPad for quick reference, just in case someone misquotes them.

Rosalie, you probably would be surprised that some liberals saw the same movies you did, pray, visit the sick, served in the armed forces and do pretty much do all the things you say you do without the need to let others know how self- righteous they are.I'm always amazed how conservatives wrap themselves around the flag and think that they own the word "patriot."

There’s no doubt liberals have attended X-rated movies, had extra-marital affairs and have done what you would classify as sinful but they don’t profess to be without sin. Several years ago, the GOP ran on a family values platform which is commendable if you can hold that standard. Many conservatives fell from grace and the public was all too happy to call them hypocrites.Conservative thought it was a double standard.

Conservatism, whether you use it in a political or religious context, means that those who adopt that ideology; tend to hold on to their traditional attitudes and values. They are reluctant to change.

Liberalism is rarely used in a religious context because it is about change and justice and many times they are interconnected.

There’s nothing sinister about being a liberal or conservative.

How to talk to a liberal

I know I stole the title from the controversial Ann Coulter's book “How to speak to a liberal if you must" I never read the book so that's the only thing I stole from her.

I'm not going to make the mistake of implying that I speak for those who take a left of center position. Recent polls state that only 21% of Americans identify themselves as being liberal. As I've said before, conservatives have always used the word liberal in a pejorative way and it worked. I still remember President George H.W. Bush looking over at his opponent, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, and saying “He’s a liberal." I think it was from then on, that liberals stayed away from the word. Within the last 10 years the democrats have picked up the label, “progressive” to identify themselves. They even have a progressive caucus. The people left of center still don't use labels as much as conservatives do, to identify themselves. Most conservatives think the conservative label is like a religious bond that is superior to anything out there.In Texas, many like to call themselves Conservative Democrats because they believe in republican fiscal policies but not always with their social ones.   It doesn't matter whether it's a fiscal or social conservative, the word conservative remains supreme in their mind. That’s why they tend to use the word "We “as if they are speaking for a solid majority.Actually only 40% claim that conservative label. According to a book I’m reading “The Reactionary Mind" many libertarians have crossed over and are now calling themselves conservatives because not that many people identify with libertarians.That’s the reason for the GOP’s sudden shift to the extreme right. If Romney wins the election, the party will come back to where it was four years ago.

I'm like an old pooch, I'll answer to anything, just as long as it's a gateway to the issues. There are extremists on both sides but a lot of people on the right think that liberals are the 1960 hippies or the Code Pink, PETA, and the radical environmentalists (tree huggers) but that's the extreme side. Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin are notable liberals. They are judged by their voting patterns. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered centrist because they are about compromising to move the agenda.If you think Obama is a liberal, it’s because you one of those conservatives that think the word liberal is a cuss word.Look at his voting record and the things he has placed as his priorities.

Now that you have background, I'm going to describe what some on the left have told me that they want in a discussion. We agreed that we want substantiated facts, as opposed to hearsay, plus we want our questions answered and we will do likewise. I don't think name calling adds any value to a discussion but it doesn't annoy me that much; I’m amused. I want my opponent to come prepared to have a good discussion with points and counterpoints. For example we had a good discussion going about the flags flying at half mast for a celebrity. Sugar Magnolia, posted the code which everyone agreed with. I'd dug a little deeper without dismissing the code and found that since there was no real enforcements, governors often got around the code by using their discretion. That would have been a good discussion until some people came in with name -calling and took the topic in a different direction.

My conservative opponents like to put me in a box and tell me what I think but when I turn the tables on them, they get annoyed. I don't argue with ideologues because it's a losing proposition and a waste of time. I can't hide from my positions of the past, nor do I want to, because it's who I am and I left a record. I can argue the merits of a tax abatement, and joint venture because there are examples where they have worked, I can't argue a philosophy that not based on actual facts. My conservative friends like to tell me that the private sector and charities will take care of poor, if not for the government but they can't give me proof based on 21st century information. We all want smaller government but we disagree on what programs to cut, how much and how fast to cut. The libertarian/ conservatives want a very tiny government but most Americans want a responsible government because they want services. We want public schools, public libraries, trained police officers and firemen, the FDA, EPA and, IRS, CIA, Social Security and Medicare.

This country is smack dab in the middle and extremists from both sides are having trouble getting people to listen to them. The only difference is the extremist on the right actually think  only their views are what’s best for this country. It's amazing how a pundit can tell the republican legislator that the polls are against you and the lawmaker will just ignore them and move on to their talking points. Persistence is something that democrats lack. I use myself as an example; I will not try to convert anyone. “To each their own” is my motto.

There you have it, if the subjects are questionable (most are) bring some evidence to support to support your claim. Tell me something I don’t know and don’t get angry if I disagree because I may have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

What’s a Conservative?

It's fairly easy to go to Wikipedia or read a definition from any number of dictionaries, to properly define the word conservative but I want a little more than that. I'm constantly hearing that someone is not conservative enough or that a local politician is not acting like a conservative. It seems to be a personal observation from the accuser. I'm not alone because this morning, I heard Joe Scarborough send a Republican representative through his paces. Joe went onto say that he's a small government fiscal conservative, so he didn't know why we added $1 trillion to the debt since the House of Representatives controls the purse strings. The representative replied" we would have to shut down the government. That's why the name of the game is a compromise, not liberal or conservative.

I don't know what the obsession is with Ronald Reagan; it's as if Republicans haven't found a leader since he left office. I hear the national candidates say, “I’m a Ronald Reagan conservative" that's just another definition of a conservative. They still talk about the 1980 Reagan Democrats; those people are long gone and had babies who are now voting. The example from above has a clear definition, but then I hear people saying, “well they're not conservative enough." I think it all boils down to a how right of center a person is. The more moderate the person is; the less they care about distinctions. I think people on the extremes sides have controlling issues but I don't have a degree in psychiatry.

A lot of conservatives will take the most positive traits of a human being and apply to conservatism and say the rest of the traits are liberal. Some people think that clean water and air is a liberal viewpoint, but it's not, it's an American or better yet, a human being viewpoint. Others will say that smaller government, fiscal economic policies, and a strong defense is what conservatism is all about. I want smaller government but I want a government that is efficient, so what I call small maybe too large for those that dislike government.

I see where we're going back to having free- for- all forums, where people post without vetting. That may have been the case all along, but I believe we had a long spell of opinionated blogs, but they didn't get their basis from conspiracy web sites. I will never understand how some people could write a letter- to -the- editor or post a blog in a public form without vetting. I have made all sorts of mistakes and have been properly corrected, but I would never think of posting something without doing the proper vetting. It may be old fashioned pride, but it would be embarrassing if someone found my blog to be a complete lie. I'm not going out a limb by saying that it's fairly obvious that those posters hate the president and everything he stands for. That in itself is perfectly OK but purposely trying to deceive posters to get others to share their hatred is what I call a “low life." The problem won't go away without the Advocate Staff commenting about the inaccuracy of a blog. It doesn't have to be mean, just a statement making other posters aware of their findings. I don't know, perhaps the posters on the VA  forum like their freedom to post without interference, thinking that the posters will always police themselves. There's something to the free flow of information based on personal opinions.

I've always admired the free spirit posters ,who will not be tied down by labels because their thoughts are not from web sites or filtered media; it comes from their heart and brain. Sometimes it's a little bit of this and a little bit of that but mostly they are 100% conservative on some things and 100% liberal on others because they refuse to be tied down to a label.It’s too bad and too bad for this liberal from Victoria.

Too Much Government?

The All American Debate

Yesterday, I watched an informative debate between Paul Ryan, Barney Frank, George Will and Robert Reich. ABC News' "This Week with Christiane Amanpour" and the Miller Center at the University of Virginia are partnering for "The Great American Debates," a series of debates on the key issues of the 2012 presidential campaign. This is going to be a series of events, which will last six weeks. Yesterday's debate was about “Too Much Government" and the panel consisted of two liberals and two conservatives and none on the panel and could be considered a moderate. I think this type of programming is great, but we will have to see in how well it does. I apologize for sounding like a skeptic, but I don't think the American public wants to be informed. They just want to stay in their ideological corners.

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin led off the discussion by saying that conservatives want smaller government, less regulation, less taxation allowing entrepreneurs to succeed in contrast to the Democrats who want more government in our lives. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts disputed the assertion. He said that we all want smaller government but what is too small or too large. This went on back and forth until President Clinton's former labor Secretary, Robert Reich, said that both parties want effective government, the size can be debated. If the government is too large, then corruption and incompetence will likely follow. If the government is too small, regulations will be ignored, and corruption and incidents will be widespread. Barney Frank brought out the old adage” conservatives want government out of the boardroom but into the bedroom" to which Paul Ryan answered" We just want to retain American values." Barney Frank is a brilliant, comical man with a short temper. He practically dominated the debate. He became a star in the Clinton impeachment hearings. Mr. Frank asked George Will why he was against decriminalizing marijuana. George Will said that he was still studying the consequences of decriminalization. Barney Frank replied “This issue has been out there for decades; you're 65 years old; what's taking you so long?"

The role of government is a favorite subject of mine because I saw the same conservatives' rail against health care, yet that's the first thing that we set up when we go overseas to occupy a country. The liberals who railed against President George W. Bush for his unconstitutional practices of circumventing our civil liberties are allowing this president to do the same when they allowed Congress to pass a law saying that the president of United States can declare a United States citizens an enemy combatant and sentence them to lifetime confinement without a trial. The leaders conveniently attached the amendment to the defense appropriation bill. What legislator would want to be in a political ad for being against funding for the troops? Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that another amendment could be taken up later, extracting the words that allow the president so much power. We've all heard that before. It's like a temporary sales tax that never goes away. I'm all for increasing the safety of American citizens but not at the risk of taking away Americans civil liberties. For example, if I donated some funds to a nonprofit group which in turn funded a terrorist group; I would be in jeopardy of spending the rest of my life in Guantanamo Bay. Is that farfetched?

I think that we know what the free market will do if it goes unfettered, and it's going to take a decade or so to develop the trust in government it once had. I don't believe anyone thinks welfare is supposed to be a way of life but unfortunately for some, it will be. I don't want to wage war against the wealthy, but I do want them to step up and pay their fair share in proportion to their taxable income. In the words of Elizabeth Warren,(D-MA) "we are proud of the wealthy corporations, but they should also step up and pay a little more for the roads the taxpayer builds, repairs and the public education that the taxpayer provides their employees." Is at a liberal position or is it a position of fairness?

We have an enormous debt and deficit so it is obvious our government is too big, but now we have a debate on picking what goes and what remains. The counterarguments are usually opinions without sufficient data to back up their claims.

What's the solution? I don't really know, but I think I know a good starting place. I think that we need to take away all party labels at the local level. It doesn't matter if a Republican or Democrat sees to it that ditches and roads are maintained. In a city, this size the ideologues have already summed up their candidates ,as to whether they are conservative or liberal, but we don't have to contaminate the rest of the voting pool. It doesn't matter how one feels on abortion at the local level or that some think only conservative Republicans know how to take care the purse strings. That could be interpreted several ways, one being they would give up progress for a $1.25 cut in their property tax. Yes, we want prudent individuals but that comes from within ,not party ideology. Let’s leave partisan politics at the national level, because if we control it at the local and state level, it might become less polarized by the time they get to Washington.Come on now,if this political junkie (25 hours of political shows a week) thinks we are getting too political;it's time to do something....:-)

A little off topic but the lack of traffic at Vic Ad worries me because it's the place where I became interested in on- line journal discussions. A poster said many have turned to Facebook; I tend to agree but I'm not a member, so that’s just a guess. The people at VA say that this is a seasonal lull, perhaps, but I can't remember it lasting so long. There has only been seven comments since 7:00AM and it's now 2:45PM If this trend continues I believe the remaining old timers will not come back because there is no one to discuss a subject with....That leaves me with some options that I may not like because I don't know how lively the discussions can be on Facebook ,even thou my whole family loves Facebook and they have assured me that I won't be disappointed. Personal blogs are easier and because I don't have to take the extra step to make sure that my words are not misconstrued. I've heard that person information can go viral in a matter of seconds.I don't want that.

America loves socialism

Americans don't want an economic system where the federal government redistributes wealth equally amongst its people. I will also argue that Americans are freedom loving people who rather not depend on government for their success or failures. However, I do believe 48 million Americans love their single- payer government run Medicare. I don't believe people were all that upset when president Obama took temporary control of Chrysler and GM Motors. It was a successful temporal measure, intended to save over one million jobs. It would have been Un-American to just let the automotive industry die although it might have set a bad precedent. It was a gamble that paid off. They key word is temporary.

After six years of reading what some posters have said about every government action under the sun; I'm convinced that they have no idea of what the word  socialism means. It's interesting that the highly conservative 23rd district of New York elected a democrat just because the republican candidate supported the controversial Medicare plan of Congressman Paul Ryan. It's also surprising that the republicans are going to continue supporting the Ryan plan, but they will repackage the message. Then again, all but four GOP representatives voted for the Ryan plan, so they might as well try to make lemonade out of some bad lemons they were handed. Paul Ryan is trying to make an argument that his plan was not about a voucher system but more of a “premium support" plan. Mr. Ryan said his plan would allow Medicare recipients who are younger than 55 years old, to choose among various private insurance companies for their coverage and the government would help with their premiums. That's where republicans don't get it; insurance companies will not willingly insure the elderly but when they do, it will be very expensive.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said if the democrats don't do anything about Medicare; it would go bankrupt. I don't believe anyone is arguing Mr. Rubio's main point but as Nancy Pelosi said" democrats do have a plan; it's called Medicare." It's no question that Medicare needs additional funds and those funds can be obtained by eliminating the subsidies for the oil companies, raising taxes on the top 2%, and cutting defense spending. The democrats have already made Medicare cuts by eliminating the Medicare Advantage program but more could be done like adding $20 co- pays, means testing, and an increase in the 1.45% Medicare payroll tax. When the republicans throw down the gauntlet of “no tax increases" they're just as much of fault as their opposition, of sticking to ideology instead of compromising for the greater good.

I have to agree with the liberal pundits; the republicans have fumbled at their own 2 yard line, how are the democrats going to mess this up? The liberal left is already saying that former president Bill Clinton should just shut up because he said that the democrats need to come up with a plan for saving Medicare and not just think the mistakes of the GOP will be enough...... Liberal talk show host, Ed Schultz, has been suspended from MSNBC for calling Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and "talk slut" on his syndicated show Tuesday. Ed Schultz should know better because liberals punish bad behavior, so they will never master the art of the "politics of personal destruction" like Limbaugh and Ingraham obviously have. In fact, Laura Ingraham will use the punishment Schultz received as a weapon of convenience. She will say something like “Oh, I don't know who he is" or "his comments were so incendiary, even for a left-wing network like MSNBC."

The GOP can’t catch a break because this afternoon,  a Wisconsin judge struck down the state's controversial anti-collective bargaining law.The senate may win on Senator Rand Paul’s amendment to the Patriot Act.Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) will  demand that the chamber vote on an amendment that would restrict national security officials from examining gun dealer records in their efforts to track potential terrorists….That makes no sense at all. Paul voted,YES, to the Patriot Act but he wants to exempt gun dealers from compliance. I guess if you factor in the gun lobbyist’s future campaign contributions;it makes a great deal of sense.

Finally when you thought that this current group of house members couldn’t stoop lower,they go and do this:

While much of Joplin, Mo., is still under rubble from a devastating tornado, conservatives in Congress are starting to argue for a tougher approach to disaster aid, demanding that any funding be offset by cutting federal money elsewhere.

Disasters will no longer be considered “emergencies” if conservatives win this battle to redefine the way Congress funds aid packages for states and cities stricken by natural and man-made catastrophes.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55776.html#ixzz1NUTZR7wB

Mind you the tax cut for the top 2% is still in tack.

The one man cavalry has arrived

We have a new proud liberal blogger who calls himself, justanotherDesertVet, who is quite articulate and if he sticks around he will be a formidable opponent for the local conservatives. He doesn't mince words and uses a lot of facts to back up his statements. It's going to be pretty interesting (for me anyway) to see who will take up the challenge because, so far he has come on like gangbusters. I think the new blogger can challenge them on their own grounds of stereotyping because he's a war vet, and he seems to be relentless but we'll see. I think a lot of the local conservatives are holding back and waiting for reinforcements because they are afraid of the one- on- one confrontation. They don't know what they will get with the new kid on the block. They got used to posting on my blog, and so they weren't afraid of whatever, I responded with because they had the numbers. After awhile it just became a habit of theirs to contradict anything I posted. When I didn't challenge, I guess they took it as a victory.Itisi has challenged the new blogger on two consecutive days  but he is trying to counter with the same old" I'm better than you because I'm conservative" crap that usually rings hollow.  I have noticed that Observer and Reeder compliment each other's post a lot. They used to do that on my blogs. They might be the same person.

Now that there is someone to carry the banner without shame; I can turn my attention  to the politics of issues where I don't have to be on the defensive and feel more at ease . It's been awhile since I've had a reliable partner to show the flip side of the coin.Kyle used to take on the local conservatives but I guess he got bored of never really being challenged. Vietnam vet and ragman used to work in unison, on the night shift and I tried my best to hold down the fort during the day, occasionally they would come in to help. BigJ use to help out but it was only because he hated the local conservatives more than he did the liberals. Lately, my old cohort has decided to be on the side of the “militant middle," whenever that means. I don't agree with Big J's assessment that conservatism and liberalism should die out because it's extremism that gives both ideologies a bad name. Talk radio and partisan media outlets do not represent  issue oriented discussions; they are mostly for a viewing or listening audience that likes a host and their guest hollering past each other.They are not for someone who wants to learn or for those with an IQ higher than their age.

It's going to make it a lot easier for me to keep up my Lenten promise of civility, now the I have someone to take on the bulk of the oncoming fire. Perhaps they will say "you know for being a liberal, Mike is not so bad after all." I kind of doubt it but it what makes life on the forum so interesting..I guess you would have to know what it's like (being a liberal in a conservative/libertarian/republican county)before you can appreciate how glad I am to have a creditable ally help to finally bring some balance to the forum

I am a liberal

It doesn't really matter what a person says they are; write a few words or in say how you feel about any subject and the recipients will place you in a slot. In Victoria, we only have two slots liberal or conservative. There is that Ron Paul slot, who usually side with the conservatives because it's much more popular. People like to be on the right sides of things. The Ron Paulites are relatively easy to identify; anti taxes, anti government, anti reforms, and spending.

I like to keep things simple, so I can get into the details of the debate. Most of my opponents are convinced that I am a liberal and that's fine with me. It's only when my partisan opponent tries to take the high road when I will call them out for being disingenuous, because we all have a bias and an agenda. It's darn near impossible to convince someone that thinks they are a moderate without any biases. This group thinks they are above the fray. I normally call them the “the mushy middle" or the "Heinz 57," which means that they like to take the good from both sides and apply it to their beliefs.

The ideological labels change their meaning over time and location. Some still think all liberals are the old flower child hippies, tree huggers, war protesters, and are only interested in making this country a nanny state. Others think all democrats are liberals. When we were in Chicago, I remember laughing, when I read a University of Chicago newspaper poll that stated that 95% of the respondents thought Obama was too conservative. I would be a moderate in Chicago. A lot of today's liberals call themselves progressives because the conservatives have done a marvelous job of demonizing the word "liberal" to where politicians usually squirm whenever a pundit calls them a liberal. In Victoria the word "liberal" is always used in a pejorative way. Conservatives are for individual freedom, less government and fewer taxes; while liberals believe that it takes a village, believe in an exclusive government and investing in the future, even if it means more taxes. I think that's a major difference because fiscal conservatives who hate deficits and liberals believe manageable deficits will lead to growth and other immeasurable benefits. i.e. Conservatives will say that high speed rail has failed in the past and cannot support itself. Liberals will counter that saying that relieving the congestion on our major highways and reducing the carbon footprint should be considered in the cost. Liberals have a hard time driving home their message in a struggling economy where everyone is worried about keeping their jobs.

A lot of fiscal conservatives or moderates will say that they are socially liberal, meaning that they accept some form of gay marriage, and are pro-choice when it comes to choose between life of a mother and her unborn child. I think there is a fringe pro-choice group and everyone else is really pro-choice because of the exceptions. I don't know a lot about the subject but that's how I see it.

President George W. Bush threw the word conservatism into the unknown when he borrowed for tax cuts and Medicare Part D (prescription drugs for seniors, bill) and put two wars on the credit card. The Tea Party will also muddy the waters with their version of conservatism. The Tea Party believes in taking a hatchet to the discretionary spending (12% of the budget) but want to leave Social Security and Medicare untouched. They don't mind going after welfare and Medicaid. I think it’s best to leave out these two examples when describing fiscal conservatism.

There it is; I have left myself open for disagreement.