"When one is advicating action that are directly at odds with their screen name, I think I have reason to
question how thoughtful you really are."
There was a time when I felt he deserved my support and now I don't feel the same. What you should be questioning is why the President feels that he can abandon the party and it's principles not what my screename is.
My actions are pro-conservative regardless of what you call them.
The truth doesn't hurt me at all, especially since it can set one free.
Name calling by you or anyone else is irrelevant and only proves the weakness of your position.
How does indirectly electing John F. Kerry President advance conservative positions?
You want to talk delusions, the notion that electing someone who is MORE liberal than Teddy Kennedy, dierctly or indirectly, is the biggest one I have seen on this forum to date.
The President has not abandoned anything - his positions have been quite clear on the issues. The one time I think he did waver (CFR) was understandable based on circumstances that were beyond his control (to wit, Enron).
I did not vote for him in the 2000 primaries. I primarily backed Steve Forbes, although my vote went to McCain after Forbes dropped out primarily due to McCain's stance on foreign policy. Bush has been quite impressive, though, and earned my support.
He was honest about his positions on some of the same issues you are complaining about today. He said he was not for a hard-line position on illegal immigration. He said he was going to try to pass a prescription drug benefit.
Why don't you listen to Alan Keyes if you won't listen to me?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071872/posts