"Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society
By George F. Will
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.
Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.
Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.
Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.
This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America's political circus, she showed grit.
ad_icon
Click here!
She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation -- loathing largely born of snobbery -- that she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences.
America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.
After William Jennings Bryan's defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats' presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, "I'm beginning to think those fellows don't want me in there." In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon -- a billionaire populist -- won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter -- peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that -- somewhat tapped America's durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.
In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist's trifecta -- a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. Actually, he had three such issues -- backlash against the civil rights revolution, social disintegration (urban riots, rising crime) and resentment of the progressive projects of Great Society social engineers (e.g., forced busing of other people's children).
Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.
Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.
georgewill@washpost.com
It's not so much a discussion of Palin as it is a discussion of populism. Will makes a good point--that populism by itself historically hasn't been a very successful ticket to the White House.
(02-18-2010 07:16 PM)Tenmile Wrote: [ -> ]It's not so much a discussion of Palin as it is a discussion of populism. Will makes a good point--that populism by itself historically hasn't been a very successful ticket to the White House.
LOL!
Given populism is basically "the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite," I'd say Obama is the latest example of a pol playing that tune.
And it works because the people are duped by a pol who acts the populous candidate but who says one thing with little insight as to what he will really do or that he is lying and has no intent to do what he says. Unfortunately, this too often leads to success in elections, but usually results in a disaster of a Presidency, just as these Obama policies have wrought with its failures to achieve, its over promised rhetoric, and its playing with words in speech making to cover up its short comings.
This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Egad Tag, have you turned into such a knee-jerk that I can't even agree with a CONSERVATIVE columnist without you having conniptions?
Quote:She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation -- loathing largely born of snobbery....
This is the part I agree with and it's been verified time and again, right here on this board.
(02-18-2010 11:40 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation -- loathing largely born of snobbery....
This is the part I agree with and it's been verified time and again, right here on this board.
[snobby]Yep. I'm guilty of snobbery against the willfully ignorant.[/post]
Quote:Thead title:
George Will on Palin
Dang. That was a mental image I didn't need.
it's past time for somebody to stand up for common sense. I don't know if it's Palin but it's sure not our current governors
(02-18-2010 06:40 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ]"Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society
By George F. Will
Thursday, February 18, 2010
America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.
After William Jennings Bryan's defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats' presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, "I'm beginning to think those fellows don't want me in there." In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon -- a billionaire populist -- won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter -- peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that -- somewhat tapped America's durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.
Ross Perot is "intellectually ordinary"? I suppose he thinks Warren Buffet is as well. Perot is one of the most succesful businessmen in the history of the world. Will knows better. He's a "conservative".
"This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites."
This is a fact that should concern Republicans.
(02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
(02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
partisan bickering over what spending is cut and what is not could be easily eliminated with across the board cuts, which would probably bring some targeted cuts within agencies. let them decide. I'm sure the muckity mucks would be the last to cut themselves but it is a solution
it's a sad state when the fact that the vast majority of people are frightened to death of a dangerous, shallow, lunatic who is popular (with some) solely due to her looks is considered snobbery, but there you have it.
Good article, but with apologies to Tim, I think
this one is a bit more on target about Palin, while as a previous poster noted, the Will article is more an indictment of Populism.
I posted it in the Sandbox a few days ago.
(02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
(02-19-2010 12:00 PM)mamasita Wrote: [ -> ]it's a sad state when the fact that the vast majority of people are frightened to death of a dangerous, shallow, lunatic who is popular (with some) solely due to her looks is considered snobbery, but there you have it.
It's doubly sad when someone states as "fact" something that they can't PROVE with FACTS! I'd like to see the verifiable FACTS to prove the ridiculous assertion above that's been made bold.
(02-19-2010 12:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
Did you know that your hero, George Junior, added more to the national debt that every other President COMBINED?
(02-19-2010 12:14 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
Did you know that your hero, George Junior, added more to the national debt that every other President COMBINED?
WRONG! CONGRESS did as the President cannot spend ONE DIME that CONGRESS doesn't appropriate. How much of that debt was in his final two years when DEMOCRATS controlled Congress?
I also think you mean BEFORE Obama began HIS spendthrift ways.
(02-19-2010 12:00 PM)mamasita Wrote: [ -> ]it's a sad state when the fact that I am frightened to death of a dangerous, shallow, lunatic who is popular (with some) solely due to her looks is considered snobbery, but there you have it.
Fred believes this more suitably fits the climate. Fred is of the opinion that a large number of people dislike, and maybe even hate, the former governor, but "frightened to death" is melodramatically misstating things.
(02-19-2010 12:18 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:14 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
Did you know that your hero, George Junior, added more to the national debt that every other President COMBINED?
WRONG! CONGRESS did as the President cannot spend ONE DIME that CONGRESS doesn't appropriate. How much of that debt was in his final two years when DEMOCRATS controlled Congress?
I also think you mean BEFORE Obama began HIS spendthrift ways.
Stampy, don't let facts annoy you. Bush added more to the national debt than every other President COMBINED! That's a fact! He NEVER vetoed a spending bill during his first 6 years and the Republican Congress passed the bills that he requested! He passed a huge Prescrition Drug Bill and Farm Bill without making ANY attempt to pay for the spending increases. No tax cuts, no spending cuts. He just put the debt on the federal credit card fort my grandkids to pay! Much of the deficit that we face in the next 10 years goes directly to pay for the Drug Bill. Obama has at least made some spending cuts and tax increases tp pay for some of his programs. Bush just cut taxes and spent like a maniac and only 1 trillion of the 5 trillion of debt that he piled up went for defense!
(02-19-2010 12:25 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:18 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:14 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
Did you know that your hero, George Junior, added more to the national debt that every other President COMBINED?
WRONG! CONGRESS did as the President cannot spend ONE DIME that CONGRESS doesn't appropriate. How much of that debt was in his final two years when DEMOCRATS controlled Congress?
I also think you mean BEFORE Obama began HIS spendthrift ways.
Stampy, don't let facts annoy you. Bush added more to the national debt than every other President COMBINED! That's a fact! He NEVER vetoed a spending bill during his first 6 years and the Republican Congress passed the bills that he requested! He passed a huge Prescrition Drug Bill and Farm Bill without making ANY attempt to pay for the spending increases. No tax cuts, no spending cuts. He just put the debt on the federal credit card fort my grandkids to pay! Much of the deficit that we face in the next 10 years goes directly to pay for the Drug Bill. Obama has at least made some spending cuts and tax increases tp pay for some of his programs. Bush just cut taxes and spent like a maniac and only 1 trillion of the 5 trillion of debt that he piled up went for defense!
So Bush spent only $1 trillion while establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security, beefing up domestic security and fighting two wars? I don't think so and if they had wanted to, Democrats could have held up those spending bills but they didn't. Since Obama has been in office, the spending rate has increased significantly by a DEMOCRAT Congress. Stop trying to blame Bush for what is going on now. He hasn't been the President for more than a year.
(02-19-2010 01:18 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:25 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:18 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:14 PM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 12:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:27 AM)TimTerpT Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2010 11:18 AM)crufus Wrote: [ -> ] (02-18-2010 11:10 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]This Deficit Commission is the latest in schemes to postpone real action on deficit spending. The POTUS and the Congress know exactly what the public wants, and that is LESS spending, and they do not want a Commission taking a year to tell us what we already know, our elected Federal Officials have to stop spending, PERIOD!
Bolding is mine here and I can't agree. The public wants less of that 'wasteful spending' on things that are not their priorities, but don't touch their 'wise spending.' That's a problem when you have a powerful interest group speaking for every dime that is spent. We really started heading towards the fiscal abyss when the Republicans realized they could have major electoral success by giving voters tax cuts and the spending they wanted (as opposed to having to choose), consequences be damned. The link I pasted into the Greek bailout thread discusses this in detail (Richard Posner).
The average voter wants tax cuts and his benefits increased. Our politicians have been giving them what they want. The want their health care benefits and don't care if their grandkids have to pay for them later. They know that social Security and Medicare and both deeply in the red, but they don't want their benefits cut or their taxes raised. We heading into an era where the growing number of retirees, who vote in a much higher rate than younger voters, will be demanding their benefits and will fight any cuts. Our generation has really screwed our kids and grandkids and left them a mountain of debt and some really serious economic problems to face.Our politicians are not up to dealing with them!
Then the POLITICIANS should have kept SS and Medicare funds where they belonged and NOT put the money in the General Fund to be spent on whatever road apple pork the POLITICIANS used it for. BTW, it was DEMOCRATS who made that possible. Don't blame we retirees because POLITICIANS screwed up.... yet AGAIN!!
Did you know that your hero, George Junior, added more to the national debt that every other President COMBINED?
WRONG! CONGRESS did as the President cannot spend ONE DIME that CONGRESS doesn't appropriate. How much of that debt was in his final two years when DEMOCRATS controlled Congress?
I also think you mean BEFORE Obama began HIS spendthrift ways.
Stampy, don't let facts annoy you. Bush added more to the national debt than every other President COMBINED! That's a fact! He NEVER vetoed a spending bill during his first 6 years and the Republican Congress passed the bills that he requested! He passed a huge Prescrition Drug Bill and Farm Bill without making ANY attempt to pay for the spending increases. No tax cuts, no spending cuts. He just put the debt on the federal credit card fort my grandkids to pay! Much of the deficit that we face in the next 10 years goes directly to pay for the Drug Bill. Obama has at least made some spending cuts and tax increases tp pay for some of his programs. Bush just cut taxes and spent like a maniac and only 1 trillion of the 5 trillion of debt that he piled up went for defense!
So Bush spent only $1 trillion while establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security, beefing up domestic security and fighting two wars? I don't think so and if they had wanted to, Democrats could have held up those spending bills but they didn't. Since Obama has been in office, the spending rate has increased significantly by a DEMOCRAT Congress. Stop trying to blame Bush for what is going on now. He hasn't been the President for more than a year.
In other words, don't act like Stampy did during the entire time that Pubs were in power.