Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
I'm not sure who "they" are, but, again, there are a lot of conservatives who are pretty upset with the way that Bush ran up the national debt and the way he spent. And, as I've said before on this board, if the Dems actually ran a credible candidate that year (instead of Kerry, who's not even a good Senator), then that election could have been a whole different story.
As far as hearing that Dems are "tax and spend," well that's just the stereotype that's come up over the years. Both sides put out rhetoric, it's just the name of the game. It's not like the Dems always stick to the issues and never use rhetoric.
I just wonder when people can finally acknowledge that BOTH parties do this stuff. If the health care debate has taught us anything, it's that both parties love using the moral high ground argument when it's convenient for them.
ETA: I'd also like us to stop talking about "Wall Street and Main Street." It's such a flawed concept that I don't even know where to start.
|
"They" were Bush administration/supporters during that election who responded when questioned on it.
I wasn't blaming one side for the rhetoric. I'm really hating the two party system that people hide behind. Instead of doing things "along party lines" and causing constant deadlock, why not take each issue individually and deal with it individually according to what the majority of the constituents in your area believe in. Are we really "of the people, by the people, and for the people" here or are we "of the party, by the party and for the party"? It feels like the latter.
I agree about Main Street and Wall Street too.