[I still care]

I think part of it is:

1)When it comes down to it, we somehow expect W, while spending, to do it with something of conservative ideals - mobilize the private sector for instance, instead of just being a grand government "I'll take care of you" giveaway like BIll and Hill would do.

2)Conservatives, while believing in personal responsibility, do often lump catastrophes in with national security as something the government may help with.

3)And last but not least, Rush's postulation - Anything that helps put the nail in the coffin of liberalism he is for. Making Republicans look good is a good thing.

don't flame me - they are just some observations I've made. I am of the personal opinion that any speech the NY Times thinks is good, I don't like.

[Captain Kirk]

"mobilize the private sector" eh? That's an old, tired rationalization for big government. Clinton used to say "build government/business partnerships" but it amounts to the same thing. Either you believe in free and unsubsidized markets or you don't. I guess we should have elected Gore after all.

[JeffAtlanta]

)And last but not least, Rush's postulation - Anything that helps put the nail in the coffin of liberalism he is for. Making Republicans look good is a good thing.

Resurrecting an opponents agenda is no way to bury them. Rush has become a Bush cheerleader. I don't think he wants to be, but I think that he knows that his Bush-bot audience demand it.