Replies

You are a rabble-rouser. LOL. It just proves a point I have tried to make. Every action Bush has taken has pissed off one segment of "base". That tells me that he has no "base". He has a cluster of icebergs the he is has to jump from one to the other just to keep afloat. It says a lot about the "conservative movement" and who gets to define it.

You are a rabble-rouser. LOL.

You realize then, what your prompt reply implies? (no taking the 5th!)
For the record, my own defnition of Bush's "base" is every living voter he got in 2000. Those are the votes he needed to win last time, and objectively, the most likely votes he'll get this time. I was one of the former, and stand a decent chance of also being one of the latter. I think the arguments over which of his 2000 votes are more "base" than some others are quite amusing.
On some of the protectionist and free market issues, I'm not hyper-doctrinaire. The steel tarrif is unfortunate, but doesn't bug me in principle, because I don't want to be in the position of being completely dependent on foreign sources of such a crucial commodity. In addition to the national security concerns, I'm also not in such a rush to plunge into a wholly post-industrial economy.
I don't like farm bills, though... they're nothing but vote-whoring.
Not that the steel tarrif won't play well in the Rust Belt, but at least we're not paying Sam Donaldson not to produce cylinder heads.

Every action Bush has taken has pissed off one segment of "base". That tells me that he has no "base". He has a cluster of icebergs the he is has to jump from one to the other just to keep afloat. It says a lot about the "conservative movement" and who gets to define it.

That's a strange analogy, as icebergs don't require help to stay afloat and this says nothing about the conservative movement. There is no conservative movement, yet. Those icebergs you speak of, are slowly disolving and will eventually reform into much larger icebergs. This is clear.