[BobL]

I agree, it looks like we have a kook here.

As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

The real disappointment was Bush losing touch with the base.

And what is the alternative, elect another conservative who, almost-certainly, would also yield to a future Republican President...or elect a Democrat?

Let me guess, we need Ron Paul.

[wartman]

As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

So you're saying that party loyalty is more important than doing the right thing.

That's the difference. You want to elect Republicans who will mindlessly vote with the party. I want to elect Republicans who will cut taxes decrease entitlement spending, and make inroads towards paying down the debt so that our children can have a better life.

Bush decided he wanted to run up the credit cards and give the bills to our kids.