That is why since WW II real GDP growth has averaged 3.3% when we had a Republican president and 4.4% when we had a democratic president.

On the same basis, the S&P 500 rose 12% annually under democrats and 8% under republicans.

Perhaps you're forgetting Carter vs Reagan. But leaving that aside, let's assume for the sake of discussion you're telling the truth, here. What of the 'rich got rcher under republicans' mantra? If the market took tose kind of hits unde republicans, clearly the claim is untrue.

So which way you goin' with this?

That is why since WW II real GDP growth has averaged 3.3% when we had a Republican president and 4.4% when we had a democratic president.

On the same basis, the S&P 500 rose 12% annually under democrats and 8% under republicans.

If Bush is really a centrist, why does he rarely if ever listen to the dems? Not saying he has to DO anything they say, but at least listen.

For one thing, GWB is apparently smarter than the Demos give him credit for. He remembers what happened to his old man when he listened to the Democrats and gave them what they wanted, as regards taxes.

For another, I suppose he'd be more interested in listening if their output had changed in the slightest over the last 40 years. It hasn't.

And one of those points is Iraq, by the way. I do not accept your response as regards Iraq. Iraq was the right thing to do, at the right time. Period.

And your glowing mention of Clinton to my mind gives exposure to your real intents. Yes, the Democrats would be worse... far worse.

Round and round she goes... - Atlas Shrugs gives her take on the nomination, (doesn't think Miers was high on the list of candidates, but no one else wanted to take the "exam") - Michelle Miers wants Laura Ingraham for...

Matt Drudge reports that in his program today, Dr. James Dobson discussed his much ballyhooed conversation with Karl Rove. Here’s a revelation from that broadcast which, in my opinion, should silence the conservative critics of the Harriet Mier...

("Oh, but 9/11 changed everything," some will say. It *should* have; but invading Iraq was very evidently a pre-9/11 velleity that Bush's band took the 9/11 opportunity to put into action.)

I don't envy the Republicans the same detachment from guiding principles that has left the Dems in free-fall since, oh, LBJ ....

First, the Republican Congress, elected on the promise of fiscal reform, has been a complete disgrace (see my earlier Tom DeLay: Liar or Fool?). What essentially happened is that these politicians were all about balanced budgets and cutting wasteful spending right up until the minute Bill Clinton left the White House. Now it's little more than a free-for-all, with Republicans saying explicitly that it's their turn in power, implicitly that they too believe in big government so long as it's their big government

Your rant ignores two things:

* Bush is a centerist, and so too are most of the Republicans in Congress.

* We've had a few issues on which money needed to be spent; A war, nad a storm here and there.

Add to that the number of things that needed doing that were NOt done under Clinton, and you have a more complete picture.

It's time you contemplated the idea of relativity; In this case, Bush versus Gore and or Kerry. Bush is a conservative only in the sense that he was more conservative than Gore or Kerry, and therefore preferable.

Do you really WANT the alternative?

(shudder)