Don't know if this is the original title of the article, and to tell you the truth I didn't read the whole article, but my first thought about the title was that Bush may not be as Conservative as some in the "concerned bloc of Republicans", but he's a heck-of-a lot more Conservative than any potential opponent in the upcoming election with a slim possibility of beating him. The timing aggravates me no end when "Conservatives" get all riled upon the eve of important elections, and start demanding their perception of perfection in elected officials who are just beginning to reverse the stranglehold of liberalism that has had a death grip on this country for a half century or more.
I haven't agreed with every decision GWB has made, but I've noticed that he seems to be trying to accomplish an end result with which I do agree in many cases. I believe he is a man of character, who genuinely wants what is best for this country, and our people. He has accomplished a long list of things that have benefited the conservative cause. This mess wasn't created in a day, and it won't be cleaned up in a day. What's wrong with constructive disagreement with a course of action in one who has provided some positives rather than helping to insure his defeat by someone who will certainly do the exact opposite. Conservatives need to think about basic things like this, and consider the possibly damaging consequences, before they go - inadvertently or otherwise - helping to cut the nose off our collective face...again.
I wouldn't be too concerned. Dems led by the Times promote wedge issues to split off Republicans, as with abortion, Bush 41's "read my lips" tax increase, and now, deficits. Sometimes it works as when Perot, and Anderson before him, captured a lot of conservative votes, but I don't believe that will be a problem this year. The Dem candidates have been forced to take extreme populist positions to get their base to pay attention to them and don't have a particularly strong field in a time of national peril from terrorists.