President Bush claims that he's concerned about spending.

Yeah, right.

The freepers aren't impressed, either:

Gawd, that's almost like Jeffrey Dahlmer pushing for a vegetarian diet.

...Bush control spending? Start with that prescription drug extravaganza?

...The biggest government spender since LBJ ask for spending limits? LOL

I'd like to think he's serious, but if so, it's too bad that it took a Democrat congress for him to get religion.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if he is. If he vetoes appropriations bills, as Bill Clinton did in 1994 (when he didn't get enough spending from a Republican congress), who will get the blame in the media for "shutting down the government"? I think we know. As it was then, it will be the political party that starts with an "R."

Wow so Simberg is just like Sullivan - a turncoat to the cause of Republicanism. Oh that's right Rand isn't a GOP supporter, he's a Rand supporter. And that's whatever Rand thinks is politically correct today. And anyone who thinks to the contrary is a cheese eating surrender monkey wanting to be a moonbat leftoid traitor.

A pox on you and all your other fellow travelers who got America and consequently the world into this mess we now find that President Bush has become.

You need to take your own share of personal responsibility for the crap you have spewed out here and in your stupid columns in TCS and elsewhere. You have spent years heaping shit on anyone who does not conform to whatever today's version of Randism might be.

And now you want to whine about President Bush. Look in the mirror Rand, it's right-wing baby-boomer white-men like you that are at the core of today's ascendancy of the right wing nut squad, and now six years later you want to say you are worried where things are going.

What a joke you are Rand.

Wow so Simberg is just like Sullivan - a turncoat to the cause of Republicanism.

I've never been a Republican, you idiot. If you'd actually read what I write for comprehension over the past several years, you'd know that. I've been complaining steadily about President Bush, on this issue, and others, ever since I started this blog.

Hey, "Mirror" -- was that you heckling Rahm Emmanuel at the Capitol?

what is today the obligatory "pretend not to be a
GOP toady" day?

Simberg has been polishing the Bush Jackboots for years
because he happened to share a dislike for one minor
dictator for a common period of time.

Simberg howls for the passing of Pinochet but
cheers the lynching of Hussein. Funny how both men
were wildly popular with the Republicans when it
suited them.

Simberg, is that you holding Rumsfeld's coat while he
shakes hands with Hussein?

Simberg howls for the passing of Pinochet but
cheers the lynching of Hussein.

No one "howls" here other than you, Anonymous Moron. It must be the full moon. Sane people can read my posts on both subjects, and recognize your obvious lunacy.

Simberg

proposing an invasion of syria and Iran is the act of
a lunatic, unless you were really proposing Israel
invade syria and iran.

Aren't you overdue for another neo-con hate parade,
where you propose the American's go over and
fight israel's enemies? Now that's lunacy.

...proposing an invasion of syria and Iran is the act of a lunatic, unless you were really proposing Israel invade syria and iran.

Not as much as fantasizing that I've ever proposed such a thing, Anonymous Moron.

Fine, then... *I'll* propose it, considering that regardless of whether they're Israel's enemies, both have committed numerous and repeated acts of war against our nation over the years, and from some no small evidence, continue to do so.

Not that I expect it to happen--if they can sack our embassies, kill our soldiers, and make a general mockery of justice and get away with it, yeah, I can't see us doing a blessed thing against either anytime soon. Maybe we'll do something when the first nukes go off.

You may now commence insulting me as some kind of evil Nazi scum. Happy now?

Jeez guys, I think you could give Rand a break. Whatever his thoughts on Bush's foreign policy, he's clearly sitting on the libertarian side of the fence on the rest of the issues.

Hmmm... invading Syria.... now that IS a good idea.

Two comments:

1. The turncoat to the cause of Republicanism is President Bush, for spending money like a liberal Democrat.

2. If we invade Syria, we'll only have to fight insurgents over there. But we're fighting Syrian insurgents in Iraq, so what the heck.

Is this what the GOP now stands for? Asserting the right to open mail without a warrant?

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4945109

Washington - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.

The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

I am curious as to the libertarian position on this.

I'm still waiting for a Democrat to reconcile "clamping down on ethics violations" with giving chairmanships to any Democrat who violates an ethics rule.

Use taxpayer paid staff to run campaigns and babysit your kids; that earns you the chair on the judicial committee.

Take bribes and get impeached; how about a chair on the intelligence committee.

Send an aide to extort a PS3 from Walmart; how about a Democrat ticket for Presidency.

Is this the Democrat idea of being progressive and liberal?

I'm happy I didn't vote for either party. What say you, Bill?

> Send an aide to extort a PS3 from Walmart; how about a Democrat ticket for Presidency.

Let's take Edwards at his word that he wouldn't have approached Walmart for a favor.

He's saying that it's perfectly appropriate for him to expect certain biz to do him favors, that he shouldn't have to send his minions to a store to buy something on an equal standing with all the other schlubs.

He's a real man of the people.

Come on Andy, you're only going to address the most trivial of Lelands points? Of course, there is no excuse for the the bribery and misuse of staff and other ethics violations so I don't blame you.

Bill, I guess it depends on the mail being opened. If it is inbound/outbound for Syria... I'd say open it.

"Simberg has been polishing the Bush Jackboots for years
because he happened to share a dislike for one minor"

Bush doesn't wear Jackboots. You do Jew-Hater. You have goostepped so much in your mommies basement, you have gotten flat feet! Seig Heil!

I'll step in here for a moment. Rand and I have sometimes been in agreement, sometimes not.

I keep coming to his blog because he usually has something thoughtful to say. I learn interesting things here. I respect Rand for the work he does here and in other places.

The comments by the various anonymous posters though are another matter. I do suggest that these people either go away or learn to discuss matters in a civil, responsible, reasonable way. Good grief, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland was quoted in the Washington Post Wednesday as saying that the Democratic Party would have to behave differently than the Republican if they hoped to get things done. Cardin, for the record, is a critic of the Iraq war. He's also a bright, thoughtful, decent man.

So, anonymous posters, please either clean up your act or go away. You are managing to offend without gaining any ground for your views.

I agree with Chuck, but I don't believe for a second that anonymous (any of them) will comply. For the simple reason that they are only here to offend, not to gain ground for their views.

Is this what the GOP now stands for? Asserting the right to open mail without a warrant?

I am curious as to the libertarian position on this.

I believe that's why your libertarian founders gave you the Second Amendment. It provides the necessary tools for overthrowing an overzealous and fascist leaning executive branch.