I was involved in HUGE groups who KNEW that Reagan WAS electable, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
There were two groups in the R party then, as now: we called them the "Rockefeller Republicans". They still exist. If President Bush had not been nominated, one of them would be president now, or algore would be.
You think it impossible to do worse than Bush?
You just wait: if Pataki, Guliani, or another northeast "republican" should ever get nominated, they WOULD be elected. You'll then realize, belatedly, why it is important to nominate the most conservative ELECTABLE R possible. You would see an expansion of the government that would make your head spin.
No matter President Bush's faults to the "conservatives" (who were also in the forefront of criticizing President Reagan's "art of compromise), his faults pale in comparison to the person who would be holding that office were it not him.
Progress has been, and is continuing to be made, by conservatives. It would be better to work to continue that progress, rather than working to eliminate those who have been responsible for any of the progress that has been made.
I know. I was around then, and active. They were also known as the Country Club Republicans and they are still around.
If President Bush had not been nominated, one of them would be president now...
Bush is a Rockefeller Republican, so I have no idea how you could say that.
You think it impossible to do worse than Bush?
Absolutely not and I never implied it.
You would see an expansion of the government that would make your head spin.
Dream on. Bush has surpassed LBJ and Roosevelt. Short of becoming a totalitarian state it would be difficult to see a bigger expansion of government in that short a period of time.
...his faults pale in comparison to the person who would be holding that office were it not him.
Content-free argument. And not universally true. A much better President could be holding the office now. Actually, any number of much better Presidents could hold the office.
Progress has been, and is continuing to be made, by conservatives.
Maybe, maybe not. However, since 2000, progress in the conservative movement has slowed to a crawl. Regardless of how hard the bushbots and White House Kool-aid drinkers spin, Bush is a big-government liberal in the mold of Richard Nixon. Sure, he seems to be mostly conservative on social issues, but without the limited government basis in political philosophy, those merits are largely wasted. The title of the thread is partially accurate. Bush is a overall a moderate, even though he was sold as a conservative. No amount of party whitewash will change that.