Most, if not all of the self-proclaimed "real" conservatives who bitch and moan about Dubya on these threads would probably have had exactly the same things to say about Ronald Reagan had FR been around in the 1980's.
Okay, I don't think that implying that those who disagree with you are childish is very "adult". In fact, isn't your whole point that adults realize that they can disagree on some issues and not "discard the whole person." Yet you do the same thing by insinuating that any conservative who doesn't support Bush is childish. You are a marvelous example of a hypocrite.
As to the substance of what I said in my original post, you cannot dispute that Bush's Medicare plan and immigration proposal angered conservatives. You cannot dispute that the recess appointment of Pickering will rally more conservatives around Bush. Accordingly, givin the timing of this recess appointment, a rational person could infer that Bush, realizing the growing discontentment among conservatives, timed this recess appointment so as not to lose his base. I did not say that he lost a "majority" of his base. A shift of 1%-5% of his base could lose the election. I also did not imply that this was a bad thing. I would love him to appeal to conservatives more. The fact that he doesn't more often is my only gripe with the administration.
Most, if not all of the self-proclaimed "real" conservatives who bitch and moan about Dubya on these threads would probably have had exactly the same things to say about Ronald Reagan had FR been around in the 1980's.
What "percentage" of disagreement is sufficent for you to vote against a candidate: 50% . . . 25% . . . 1%? Reagan was far from 100% in line with the conservative position. But he got more leeway when he did depart from the conservative line (e.g. the 1986 amnesty) because Reagan did not have a domestic record that is as liberal as Bush.