Seems like a classic case of turnabout being fair play. Last election was won through a masterpiece of populism and issue deflection. Iraq was too complicated to figure out, so suddenly the most important issues became gay marriage and "flip-flopping". And even if you accepted that those were the most important crises in the country, it's not like the majority of Republicans weren't flip-floppers too... and Kerry was against gay marriage, he only said he wouldn't veto a bill that legalized civil unions. And there wasn't going to be any such bill, either, because the Republicans had the majority in congress! It was such a trivial, pointless, hair-splitting clusterfuck, and yet it was all anyone could talk about. You just couldn't fight a populist surge with an appeal to rationalism... It was the most surreal thing I've ever seen. The iraq quagmire was deepening every day, Osama bin Laden still at large, and everywhere you looked motherfucking red necks were duct-taping flip-flops to their trucks (sign: "Obama's shoes"), right next to their "Marriage = [male figure] + [female figure]" bumper stickers. And now the populist grandstanding shoe is on the other foot, and the good citizens of this country are blaming the Republicans for a problem actually started by the Democrats. And Obama's going to take Florida; I can tell you that without even looking at the poll numbers. Welcome to democracy.
You don't understand. Reagan made deficit spending a conservative philosophy. To the new republicans Reagan made spending more than you make as being conservative. Deregulation became a religion and not a policy decision. Tax cuts became a religion and not a policy decision. I don't think Reagan would approve of what the republican party has done in his name. Kennedy was the right man for the job and was what America needed at that time. Lumping Kennedy with Nixon and Johnson and Carter is just ignorant. Nixon is in a class by himself. Ford was good except for his pardoning of Nixon. Reagan's policy wasn't deficit spending, it's just that he could not get the spending cuts he wanted enacted. Instead of compromising on the military buildup among other things, the repubs and demos simply winked at each other and bought everything they wanted. Clinton was just incredibly lucky, he benefited from the end of the cold war, a budget deal between Bush I and a demo congresss in 90, and a historic tech bubbble he had nothing to do with that showered govt coffers with cap gains taxes. I can't think of a single active policy of his, other than cutting military spending, that helped with the budget. He simply sat back and let the bull market take care of things. The last bit of 'luck' he had is that be bumbled the first two years so bad that the republican revolution in congress prevented him from enacting any harebrained liberal agendas from 95-01. It is interesting to look at a S&P 500 weekly or monthly chart and see an inflection point in January 1995, the month republicans took over congress. Iraq was too complicated to figure out, so suddenly the most important issues became gay marriage and "flip-flopping". And even if you accepted that those were the most important crises in the country, it's not like the majority of Republicans weren't flip-floppers too... and Kerry was against gay marriage, he only said he wouldn't veto a bill that legalized civil unions. And there wasn't going to be any such bill, either, because the Republicans had the majority in congress! It was such a trivial, pointless, hair-splitting clusterfuck, and yet it was all anyone could talk about. You just couldn't fight a populist surge with an appeal to rationalism... It was the most surreal thing I've ever seen. The iraq quagmire was deepening every day, Osama bin Laden still at large, and everywhere you looked motherfucking red necks were duct-taping flip-flops to their trucks (sign: "Obama's shoes"), right next to their "Marriage = [male figure] + [female figure]" bumper stickers. I understand, there are a lot of pointless sideshows. Bin Laden is important but gay marriage is not significant. At least with Iraq, since most conservatives I know recognize that it's a mess we would take responsibility to try and fix it and stand up to take the heat. The problem with the subprime is that liberals refuse to acknowledge anything wrong with their policies or accept responsibility for the role they play. Therefore given the opportunity, they will do it again. Given the mess in Iraq, I doubt conservatives would support it again as is.