[IronJack]

I don't think that amorphous ideology is driving his political agenda. I suspect he is the ultimate accommodationist, an appeaser without peer. Contrast his tepid, protean performance with the doctrinaire conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

[bdeaner]

If Bush is an appeasor, then I would assume this means he is appeasing someone else who has an ideology, in which case he has a de facto ideology. :)

Really, though, I don't see Bush as an appeasor, quite the contrary. He's got backbone, and he sticks by his word, even when the polls are against him. He may not be Reagon, but he is getting there.

[GulliverSwift]

I don't think that amorphous ideology is driving his political agenda. I suspect he is the ultimate accommodationist, an appeaser without peer. Contrast his tepid, protean performance with the doctrinaire conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

You mean the same Reagan who raised taxes as a governor and president and who never signed any meaningful abortion legislation?

In reality, neither were/are as conservative as you'd like. Too many Freepers who weren't around back in the day don't realize that Reagan faced very similar complaints.

[William McKinley]

OK, I am.

Frankly, I don't see a tremendous difference, outside of which things they talk about in speeches.

They both expanded military spending.

They both cut taxes.

And they both accepted government growth to accomplish some of their other priorities.

Take away the waxing philosophic, and I see very similar approaches to governance.

And I happen to appreciate the efforts of both.