It was this gridlock, and the hate campaign that followed, that started right after Gore was defeated and taken note of by OBL. It was the basic reason for 9/11 and we all have the Democrats to thank for it. Should the gridlock continue, and the Dems will surely keep it alive, then we can look for another 9/11 to happen sooner rather than later.

Don't think for one minute that OBL and other terrorist groups are not watching our every move and waiting for the right time to strike. With the Dems in power, they will certainly have an easier time with the dismantling of anti terrorist intelligence that the Dems. will destroy, making everyone less secure here at home.

Please please please tell me what is more compasionate than conservatism. C'mon, name something. Just one is all, just one. Can't do it, can ya?

Read "Atlas Shrugged". That will give you some insight on what the real meaning of compassionate is.

For one thing compassionate conservatism isn't really conservatism.

I think the only place you see gridlock will be if the GOP in congress puts the kabosh on the spending. Being in the minority, the GOP may actually find their way back to this-but time will tell.

What concerns me is if the democrats take the WH and the GOP can't retake the senate (I seriously doubt the house will turn over in two years time, but you never know) then we will end up with the big spenders in all three branches of government.

While I am a republican, and mostly vote that way, I can honestly say that I think government works better when one party doesn't control everything. But considering the slate of GOP presidential hopefuls, I am not even sure if any of them can win in '08. I think at that point, is when you will see the true colors of the liberal wing of the dems emerge. I don't think the democrats are dumb enough to grasp that agenda other than a few little things like the proposed minimum wage increase or a revisit of the medicare drug bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-insure111306,0,1178756.story?coll=la-home-headlines

My suggestion to you is instead of your usual bellyaching why don't you help figure out the best way to pay for this through taxes. Their plan will cost the federal government about 300 billion dollars. How would you raise that much money?

Bush has to see now that playing nice nice with democrats gets you nowhere.

Hope you didn't waste your vote on a mistaken belief otherwise.

On the other hand, if the Democrats do keep their promise to reimpose the spending caps, then that will create better outcomes regardless of how much Democrats wish to spend.

The main difference right now between Democrats and Republicans is this:

Republicans are big spenders but don't think they have a problem.

Democrats are even bigger spenders, but recognize the problem and are willing to consider measures that will force them to hold spending down.

Or will he pull a Reagan of agreeing to domestic spending increases in return for the support needed to win the war?

Both versions of Reagan have their place in the history books and I can see Bush considering both. My gut says he will consider the winning of the war on terror as more important (and thus worth horse trading) than anything else.