Should Gibbons Have Compromised?

Originally posted in a LVRJ Forum

I think the Gibbons tax-&-spend vetoes were correct. It's possible that the taxpayers would have done a little better had Gibbons made a deal. That's what Republicans always do, and all it does is implement the Democrat agenda at a slower pace. The compromise strategy assures we *never* get small government.

In the long run it's better that the Democrats and RINOs make the Governor irrelevant. The tax-&-spend bunch will win -- maybe even for one or two decades -- but as the corruption mounts voters will turn. They'll realize that big government is the problem, and start electing small government candidates.