Sometimes you are such a child ....

What we on the "right" espouse as "Reagan conservatism", at least my interpretation, is a set of principles that you would then apply to the problems we face today. Strong defense, smaller govt, low taxes, etc.

Now, this means that in a post 9/11 world, when applying the Raegan principle of a strong defense, I believe would lead him to seal the borders, and not grant amnesty as he did in the 80's. On taxes, that speaks for itself. On the size of govt, he would now, as he did then, slow the growth of govt. It is a truism that it grows each fiscal year no matter who's president, but where and how much can have a huge impact and seperate what is "conservative" from what is "liberal.". He increased the budget, size & scope of the military - does that mean he can't then claim to have shrunk the quote, "government?" Technically, as you have pointed out, yes. However, politically speaking to shrink welfare roles, wasteful spending etc, and to slow the rate of growth as compared to the track it was on is, in political speak, "shrinking the the government.' You must recognize that growing the military, although it is obviously a part of the federal government and its budget, is not the quote unquote "government" that conservatives rail against. It is a special p[ortion not to bre lumped in, politically speaking, with cries to slow and reduce the size of government.

You do this every so often, get into this game of semantics and become a stickler for technical definitions. Fine, but the reality is that "political speak" has a language all its own, and in that world, and quite literally if you consider slowing the rate of growth a cut, as democrats always do, Reagan shrunk the government.

Now, should people occasionsly point all this out so people like you don't get all worked up? Maybe, but I would think with your level of intellect it wouldn't be neccessary.

So, to reiterate, "Raegan conservatism" is a set of principles that when applied would mean different specific actions for different presidents depending on the threats/problems they face in their term.

And as I stated I think the principles of a strong national defense, low taxes, smaller more efficient government, and placing a special value on life would lead even Raegan to do specific things different in a 2008 presidency (technically 2009 Titus, if that makes you happy) then he would in 1986, i.e. "seal" (yes, I know it isn't technically sealed, man that is annoying to have to hold your hand on those pure definitions) the border; nothing less then victory in the Middle East; very consructionist judges; a healthy military budget; and scoff at ideas like prescription drugs on the federal tab (I'm talking to you "dubya.")

Get it now? By the way, I think you need to listen to MORE conservative talk, not less. The left channels are so juvenile as to make Howard Sterm look like Margaret Thatcher. You may not agree always ( a given) but atleast the majority of the time there is a real discussion of ideas.
FR