But I notice some disgruntled conservatives are rather socialistic in their criticisms of the Bush tax cuts as nothing more than corporate welfare for the rich.
That's sad because I've always agreed with George Will's observation that Middle Class Americans do not hate the rich - they want to BE the rich.
I point out Bush's tax cuts because the columnist writes that the conservative factions are not being cooperative in trying to advance the movement forward and I was noting that you will point out the bad without acknowledging the good (tax cuts and war on terrorism are 2 conservative highlights... unless you prescribe to the CNN/Air America mindset which is that these are both horrible setbacks for the U.S.)
You must have a different circle than I--I've never, ever, in 40 years of being interested in politics, heard a conservative, nominal or otherwise, disgruntled or otherwise, complain about "tax cuts for the rich." And I would certainly ask that you not--whether you did or not--imply that I would say something that economically stupid. I argue that, despite the cuts, that position is more in the Bush genes than on my side of the debate.
If you're saying Bush has done some good things, I agree with you--he's all over the lot from excellent to horrible. That's why I frequently maintain that he has no more philosophy of government or principles than Bill Clinton. Political expediency is the name of his game, in my opinion--your mileage varies a lot, I know. And that belief of mine tends to undercut my "socialist statist" categorization. But when a President can even consider those horrible things he's done, whether through political expediency or principle (like, say Franklin Roosevelt or LBJ), it is fair to categorize them that way.