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/postsThis is not a Kerry or Bush issue for me so listening to you, Allen Keyes, Karl Rove of Bush himself means nothing.
It's actions that concern me and more specifically the actions that Bush has taken and will take with a majority in both the House and Senate to back him.
Instead of advancing the conservative agenda (the traditional leanings of the Republican party) as he could have done to this point it has been retarded.