> And the point about Democrats questioning Bush's legitimacy is a great one. Here's someone who actually was arguably illegitimate for his first term, and what did Democratic officeholders and commentators do?
They, along with the rest of polite society, when some "brave artist" ranted about Bush's assassination.
> if the Republican tea party is honest about their concern with deficits, where were they prior to January 2009?
Actually, a lot of us were screaming about the bush deficits, ,which got a big boost in 2006, when the Dems took congress, something that you completely ignore.
However, as I point out, there is a difference between $160B deficits and $1T deficits.
Sure, you want to blame the economy, but even if that's the only cause, why is it reasonable to keep spending as if times are flush when they clearly aren't?
They, along with the rest of polite society, when some "brave artist" ranted about Bush's assassination.
> if the Republican tea party is honest about their concern with deficits, where were they prior to January 2009?
Actually, a lot of us were screaming about the bush deficits, ,which got a big boost in 2006, when the Dems took congress, something that you completely ignore.
However, as I point out, there is a difference between $160B deficits and $1T deficits.
Sure, you want to blame the economy, but even if that's the only cause, why is it reasonable to keep spending as if times are flush when they clearly aren't?