The actual facts only matter insofar as something was needed to create a premise.

It’s called “propaganda”.

Monica doesn’t bother me. She’s a fig leaf, anyway, that Dems use to cover everything else.

She covers scandal after scandal, the worst of which, IMHO, national security-wise, and among those which a truly politicized Reno Justice Dept whitewashed, the administration’s secret dealings with the Chinese military, by which the PRC jumped a ten year generation in MIRV warhead accuracy. No, it wasn’t “just” Monica.

Like does not equate law, and manufactured scandals do not equate real scandals.

Well, I think we’ll just have to disagree, I ‘m probably more ideological than the average I guess. However…

You have sand in your thong over FISA and the wiretaps: Too bad, I like it.

Bill Clinton probably liked Monica too… but lying under oath is breaking the law. Wiretaps without FISA signatures… thats breaking the law too. I personally would argue that the federal government circumventing specific controls that were designed to keep it in check… may be a bit more serious than lying about one’s choice of interns.

Like does not equate Law.

First of all thanks for responding to my question. I pretty much agree with Buddy in his responses but I’d like to add a comment regarding your first example: I strongly suspect that was a reaction to the media’s hysterical and erroneous interpretation of the Constitution regarding the power of the President to go over the heads of local officials in Katrina. Bush was lambasted by every two-bit hustler for following the law and the MSM just joined in. So yes, the Congress was probably pretty stoopid in reacting that way (and it probably wouldn’t have withstood a Constitutional challenge) rather than telling them to STFU and here’s what the law specifies, but I doubt that coverage of that would’ve been fair and balanced. You have sand in your thong over FISA and the wiretaps: Too bad, I like it.

I share your feelings on the demise of anything-but-huge government but we’re just pissing in the wind these days.

Would like to remind that, in light of the fact that USA has grown a China-sized economy over the last four years, those spending numbers are far less horrifying when properly viewed as percentages of the various bases, such as GDP.

Using absolute numbers alone is if you think about it, political, in that it seeks to persuade that there is no other number in the equation. There is of course; spending a hundred dollars is not the same thing to a person with a hundred dollars as it is to a person with a thousand dollars. Though both spent a hundred dollars.

You are both right.

I must admit that GWB is not what I would call a conservative nor does he have consistently conservative values (e.g. smaller government, less regulation, pro-small business, more personal responsibility, etc.). This is borne out of his actions, including the immigration debacle, prescription drug plan, failure to make permanent tax cuts, failure to reduce the size of government – look at the employment numbers – and allowing spending at rate that borders on immoral.

He has responded to 9/11 against an supra-national enemy, and, so far whether by luck or good work, we have not had another incident. In dclydew’s favor, is my view that GWB could have accomplished some of the same objectives in different ways.

God forbid where we would have been if Gore was President.

What we need in 2008 is for someone like Newt in the White House and hope that the Senate and Congress largely turnover. A chance to start over if you will.

As too your points above, I share your concern on a few of them. But as Judge Posner points out, we face incredible danger. I over dramatize I suppose, but given a choice between a slight tarnishing of the “ideal” of the law and dying from a sudden bright blinding flash, I will choose the former.