Bush very simply has not governed from the far right with any consistency.

No Child Left Behind was coauthored by the very unrighty Ted Kennedy.

Under Bush, government spending grew even slightly faster than under Clinton. He campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," which of course means lots of wasteful (non-DoD) bureaucratic spending, which is an olive branch to the far left.

He also has been less of a military interventionist than he campaigned. He was asked in a 2000 debate what he'd do if North Korea developed nuclear weapons, and said "I'd take 'em out." In office, he did no such thing, opting for the pointless multilateral negotiations that the left loves. The story with Iran is similar.

He campaigned in opposition to nation building, which the left historically has loved, and ended up doing it. This of course was a compromise, that the left reflexively rejects because they just don't want to believe the implementation of one of their policy goals could be so unseemly.

Steel tarriffs, farm subsidies, possible AMT reform, the list of lefty olive branches Bush held out goes on.

I am so tired to throwing money at everything to fix it. Our Money has become an idol of worship. Families have terrible expenses, with raising children and educating them to fend for themselves. We are throwing billions to education; do we see any improvement, no. We pay people hundreds of millions to dribble a round ball seventy-five feet and shoot at a basket and they only make the shot count 28% of the time. The owners do not pay the professionals we do. It costs over five hundred dollars for a family of four to attend a college football game.

It is claptrap my Grandfathers farmed with Mules, sold cream and eggs to buy staples and raised productive children. If we quit throwing money at politicians, we would not have to have term limits. They need to show taxpayers what they can do for their money instead of being like a spoiled child asking for bigger allowances. Politicians are a perfect reflection of the Paris Hilton disorder. The government wants 39% of your wages, the preacher wants 10%, and the School, State, and City wants 26% we are expected to save for retirement and live on the remaining 25%.

Hmmm, what's up with the "what's up with Ron Paul and Abe Lincoln"? I need to google what sounds too interesting not to know what it is. I only know, re Bush and the price of oil, that oil states like Texas and Oklahoma - where most of his big donors live - are booming economically, while the rest of us pay for it.

Sorry, last line below should read... IN THEORY...the true protector of our liberties is the federal government.

The best part of getting rid of states is there'd be no more states' rights, a euphemism for their right to be unAmerican. Unfortunately, state's rights are in the GOP platform. Republicans imagine they protect us from the federal government, never mind the true protector of our liberties is the federal government.

"Partisanship" like "political correctness" is a legitimate put-down prone to being used falsely, as when Bush calls Congressional Democrats partisan merely for opposing him. What's worrisome is some pundits have allowed him to redefine the word to cover legitimate division. By definition, to be partisan is to contrive differences. Thus Bush is being partisan when he pretends only Republicans have sincere positions. The push to pretend there are no real party differences is an unwittingly totalitarian tactic. Division has always been a necessary prelude to social revolutions that have bettered America.

Uhm.
Why did Tim Russert even ask Ron Paul about Abe Lincoln? It really is not clear to me how a US civil war (over 150 years ago!!) relates to anything happening in the world today. Is it possible that it was just a simple diversion from the real questions that Russert should have asked? I for one would like Russert to have asked Ron Paul: What is the role of Congress and the President in the economic disaster looming for 2008? What is the proper role of the government in overseeing the Federal Reserve? Why are both the Fed and the government spending money and creating money as if there were no tomorrow? Why is Bush doubling the size of the oil reserve AND trying to fill it at $90 per barrell? What does Bush know about the future price of oil? Ron Paul has some good ideas about the economy and how to fix things. Scary times and Russert wants to hear about Abe Lincoln. Goodness gracious! What are Russert and his meet the Press staff smoking nowadays?

This whole left vs. right discussion has become unendurably tiresome.

A national or small set of regional primaries would mean the voters would effectively have a choice only among the anointed candidates of the political machines. Grass roots candidates need not apply.

Though outsiders might achieve ballot status, the voters would ignore even those that exactly represent their own political views in favor of the least-unpleasant candidate they consider electable. (Mathematical Psychologists call this phenomenon "dishonest voting". It wreaks havoc when modeling elections.)

You can see how this works now, notably with the candidacy of Ron Paul. There are only a handfull of primaries and caucuses before the massive "Super Tuesday" elections where an outsider can prove his mettle and popularity before the mass election that gives a near-certain lock on the nomination.

With a single national primary the operators of the media can maintain an untestable impression that the outsider candidates are unelectable, right up to the point were all the voters must decide what vote to cast. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. With a series of individual primaries this image rams head-on into actual vote counts. An outsider with real support can demonstrate that support, exposing any bias in the coverage and convincing a progressively larger fraction of the voters that his cause is not lost, before enough delegates are chosen that it BECOMES lost.

= = =

Regarding Ron Paul's comments on Lincoln and "What's up with that?": He was asked a direct question - one which relates directly to his proposed policies on when to go to war and how else to solve problems that have historically led to war. Had he ducked it he'd have been subject to (deserved) criticism for doing so.

What would YOU have had him do? Is there ANYTHING he could have said that would have satisfied you?

What I'd like to know is, if conservatives are put out with Bush for being a big spender and soft on illegal immigration, why are they flocking to Huckabee, who has the exact same shortcomings?

I'd like to know, given the huge amount of conservative dissatisfaction, when, if ever, Bush is going to supposedly govern from the "Far Right," which would take major changes from his first 7 years.

No, that isn't the lesson of the Bush Administration. The lesson is that the Republicans will never compromise on anything, and that if they once get the upper hand, as they did in the years 2000-2005, there is no dirty trick, no unfair tactic, and no illegal rigging that they will not stoop to to get their way. Oh, and they lie. That's the other lesson of the Bush Administration. Republicans will lie even when they know for sure that the public will find out they were lying in a month or so, just for the temporary political advantage they will get from it. Not just Bushies, but Republican leaders in Congress, Party officials, media allies, and Supreme Court Justices will do anything to enable the Republican agenda, which is both profoundly selfish and fundamentally ignorant.

The lesson is that the choices are to let them have their way, or to fight against them using every and all weapons available in order to stop them from destroying the Constitution in order to exalt the corporate class above any other value.