As RedState puts it, “The Craptacular Capitulation of a Lame Duck.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects, but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future, administration officials said Monday. (story here)

Translation: “Don’t do it again! But I’m going to let you do it just this once…” (Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle snicker with glee)

Fiscal conservatives in Congress and budget watchdogs have been urging Mr. Bush to issue an executive order instructing agencies to disregard the many earmarks listed just in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

More than 90 percent of earmarks are specified that way, not actually included in the texts. White House officials say such earmarks are not legally binding on the president.

Emphasis mine. The next logical step for a real conservative President would be to gut these non-binding earmarks, right? Well, yeah, but Bush isn’t exactly a conservative President.

Congressional leaders of both parties, who are scheduled to meet on Tuesday with the president, said Mr. Bush would provoke a huge outcry on Capitol Hill if he ignored those earmarks.

Waaaaah! We want our pork and we want it now!

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy.

Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.

Again, all emphases are mine. Heaven forbid a Democratic president striking favors earmarks from a bill! Why? Well, because there’s an “R” next to that legislator’s name!

So it goes. Fiscal conservatism, who needs it?

Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate (well, serious candidate, Ron Paul did as well) to say outright that he would issue the executive order against these “air-dropped” earmarks.

Ridiculousness like this is why people like me aren’t taking the “but you’ll let Hillary win!!” line when it comes to the “Republican” candidates.

What’s the difference, honestly?

Sen. McCain will interfere in the market (and give taxpayer dollars to people who lose manufacturing jobs - so why would they look for another one?), be against tax reform, embrace Al Gore’s Global Warming Government Expansionist argument, and appoint judges who will side with him on McCain-Feingold - meaning not judges like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas. He’ll close Guantanamo Bay and argue that intense interrogation of terrorists to save American lives is actually “torture.” Not to mention, he has a temper and a vindictiveness similar to that of the Clintons.

Gov. Romney still supports the federal “assault weapons” ban. He’s an advocate of government mandates for healthcare (see RomneyCare). He recently said he was disappointed that there wasn’t a federal program to help Detroit automakers, and basically pledged to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to “save” Detroit if he becomes President. Michigan voted for him, so they will expect results. He’s a friend of Ted Kennedy. I haven’t even touched his convenient “conversion” to social conservatism - he turns me off enough today with stuff he’s saying now, so his “change of heart” is just icing on the cake.

Huckabee? Do I really have to go to the John Edwards wannabe? Yeah, he’ll be a real strong advocate for fiscal conservatism and limited government, let me tell ya! (snark off). Not to mention he’s one of the most immature, unserious candidates on either side of the race.

If we’re going to give this country to statists, by all means do it under the Democratic banner, not the Republican one.

UPDATE: Stop The ACLU has more of this line of thinking, referencing Stephen Bainbridge and even Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE II: The Club for Growth has more details on the fallout from this move by the Bush Administration, and a round-up of conservative response around the blogosphere and in the media.

UPDATE III: Michelle Malkin has an excellent round-up of McCain’s ridiculous position on illegal immigration, which I failed to mention originally.