Finally, the "leadership" grew a pair after last week's debacle.

But DeLay wouldn't have needed a do-over.

Sigh. These days, that's what it means to vote Republican. You don't get actual conservatives; you simply get the "least bad spend-o-crat". And man, that is depressing. If I could have a wish granted, here's what it would be: the Democratic party would be abolished; the Republicans would become the Democrats; and some as-yet unformed third party become the party of true fiscal conservative/social liberal/foreign-policy-hawk citizens.

Not to sound like a "Me too!" AOLer, but ditto Monty. It is depressing. The democrats have become a fringe moonbat loony party and because nature abhors a vacuum, the republicans have taken the place of the democrats. Who is going to replace the republicans?

It now appears that the republicans opposed Clinton's policies more out of partisan politics instead of principled reasons.

Too true, Monty. The most frustrating thing about this setup is that it's so damn difficult to apply any pressure to these guys. The Republicans can spend like drunken sailors in a Manila whorehouse, and still the Democrats manage to make them look like the "least bad spend-o-crats."

You know, kind of like the way Dale looks nothing at all like a "Me too!" AOLer. Not compared to me, anyway.

This bugs me because (as pretentious as it sounds) I voted Republican in the last few elections for philosophical reasons. Small government, fiscal sanity, a robust foreign policy, and personal responsibility rather than government interventionalism -- I thought that's what the Republicans stood for. But can anyone honestly say that this is the case?

The sad thing is: what choice do I have? Voting Democrat is out; I might as well just mail my paycheck to Washington every two weeks and invite the Jihadis over to behead me at their earliest convenience. And voting Libertarian might give me a momentary twinge of satisfaction, but ultimately it's spitting into the wind.

...All we are is spittin' in the wind.

I took the Libertarian option in 1996 and 2000. A cousin of mine had been voting that way for a while; he told me, "I never see my guys' policies enacted, but I also don't feel like taking a long, hot shower when I leave the voting booth."

Unfortunately, times are too serious to take that option, and the Libertarians have gotten much, much sillier. (I read that there's a move to get Cindy Sheehan to run for the Senate in NY on the Libertarian ticket.) Another alternative would be really nice.

The alternative is a Republican populist uprising in the primary process. All those establishment types like to pretend we can't do anything, but when we actually care and get motivated they turn white and panic.

But how many ordinary Republicans are informed and motivated about the primary? How many challengers are there. We came incredibly close to overthrowing Specter with a real fiscal conservative. If that had happened, the revolution would have been much further along.

Well, of course the democraps voted against reducing spending. With the MSM carrying their (piss)water for them, they can vote against spending cuts in the afternoon and then blame evil chimpymcyadayadayada for spending too much on the evening news without ever having to explain the doublespeak. AARGH!! Excuse my while I unwad my drawers. There, much better. Carry on.

Reuters news service can kiss my ass.
The second paragraph of their story reads as follows: The "deficit-reduction" plan passed the House by a cliff-hanger vote of 217-215, with all Democrats and 14 Republicans voting against the Republican-authored bill.
Why is "deficit reduction" in quotation marks? Why, because Reuters wants to be certain we ignorant poltroons recognize that the real purpose of this effort is, of course, to give tax breaks to the rich (see paragraph four of same story).

From now on, I think I'll refer to "Reuters" as a "news service" which is trying to "slant its coverage" to "transparently" serve a "particular leftist agenda."
"Assclowns" that they are.