Why are you looking to start an argument? You're just as bad if not worse for your comments. At least the conservative die-hards are true in their beliefs. It appears you're a republican die-hard. If the republicans wanted to raise minimum wage, guarantee everyone a "working" salary, cap the price of groceries, cap the price of housing, cap the price of gas, and only allow sub compact cars--I guess you'd agree with them.
I'm sure the die hard conservatives are thinking, yes Bush is a shrewd politician...even better than Clinton. And that's what's causing them so much heartburn. They want a man of conviction not another sleep with your sister politician.
Me, I like Bush. I like some of the things he does and others things I don't. I look at the issue and think through it. If I agree with him great. If not, I don't change my position because a republican president does something for political reasons. In the end it *may* work out for us in the long wrong. And that is something we'll have to wait for to see what happens.
I'm holding out for the off year elections. If we get the senate back and hold on to the House then I'll say GW had a great plan. If it fails...I'll have to say it stunk and I expect some more conservative positions from him. It all hinges on the 2002 elections.
Hold on thar, podnuh!
I'm as Edmund Burke conservative as you can get, Mr.!!!
Conservatism is the respect for institutions that have worked well in the past, while liberalism is the adolescent arrogance to think that you know better than the hundreds of generations before you and are going to change the whole system around to make it right in one swell foop.
Well, then, according to Burke, a wholesale revolution of any status quo is de facto LIBERALISM. Likewise, a man of conviction walking into the White House and abolishing the IRS by decree would not be conservative at all! A man of conviction would halt all activities by the government not spelled out in the constitution, but a true conservative would set a course to get you back over a generation or so....much longer than "the whiners" on this board would tolerate. A conservative will try to gently redirect things in the manner of the wisdom of their elders and past institutions (the things proven to work), where as liberals radically alter things (typically for the worse....if it works don't fix it.)
That being said, I hope you will understand the position I come from. I am not a moderate, but a true conservative that eschews revolution as chaotic and dangerous. Those on this board that decry Bush for not being a man of conviction would probably be able to get us into much trouble if they held the reins of power for even 30 seconds!!!
Am I trying to start an argument? No. Am I exhausted with the foolish armchair QB'ing on here that doesn't give any credence to the inertia of the massive government? You betcha.
Put a foolish kid in a Miata and he may zip in and out of traffic at 70 mph. Put that kid on a clunky tractor and he may roll it over on top of himself at 5 mph.
The federal gubbmint is big and clunky (due in part to liberal demmys and pubbies both) and trying to turn it on a dime like so called "conservative die-hards" would like is far worse than having W offend their strongly held, but perhaps poorly thought out beliefs.