Here I am, glad that President George W. Bush, and wondering if everything I wanted is attainable.
He's going in the right direction for the war, put more people in, get it settled quick, let the iraqi people create their own free/democratic government...
Then gradually let their own police/military take over...Which may take a year..or less or more...
But now there's the handling of immigration and budget. We do need to improve our military spending, so that if we need to take action, we won't run out of personnel or supplies, as we had thru all of Clintons, peacekeeping actions.
Military is meant for war, not for peacekeeping.
There is a realistic need to prepare ourselves against real enemies, on the other hand, the increase in pay for federal employees, amnesty for illegal aliens, and increase in budget deficit cap limit, are those the examples of a Fiscal Conservative?
Being a fiscal conservative means spending little, but doing much. Or that if we do spend money, it has to be towards a specific goal, with a plan to realistically attain that goal. And if that goal can not be met, then no spending is allocated.
Let's face it, George W. Bush is a Moderate Republican. The things he does so well on, do over-shadow the things he could improve upon.
We all realize there's no way Senator Kerry was competent to handle the U.S. Government in wartime, or actually anytime..
But now where do we want to go, as a people and as a nation?
I do have a libertarian bent, that tells me that we need to control costs, and aim for smaller government persistently.
Not no government, not anarchy, but a government that urges, encourages self-responsibility.
What do you think?