OK, Allrighty then. That would make Bush preeminent over Lincoln in terms of greatness.
Lincoln was famous for how expedient he was, acknowledging that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territories. Of course, that neglects the fact that he set the course of the nation towards abolition, knowing that once the Union won, slavery was over. Bush's approach has not been the easy path.
That expression, "no true conservative", reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I agree with sealing our borders, AND spreading democracy. At the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
Slavery was well on its way to death regardless of Lincoln's actions. You can't mouth your respect for the law when you consistently flout it, by ignoring the Constitution at your whim and jailing those who dissent with you. I didn't say that sealing our borders and spreading democracy were mutually exclusive. But I don't see the section in the Constitution where it allows us or even encourages our Republic to export democracy. This is pre-emption carried to the extreme. Defense against invasion or imminent threat can be justified. Trying to mold the world in our image is not, either financially through confiscatory taxation nor through interventionalist foreign policy (with the use of American troops not ruled out.) Hopefully, this represents nothing more than a bit of sabre rattling to put the Saudis, Syrians and Pakistanis on notice that they'd better not step too far over the line.
Apparently the plan is to replace UN hegemony with US hegemony. We can definitely encourage the seeds of freedom in other countries and consistently criticize dictatorship and repression. But if so, we'd better be prepared to do more than mouth pretty words. I suspect, though that our trade with China will proceed unimpeded, even if they invade Taiwan next week. And if Musharaff decides to eliminate a few warlords, we will still turn a blind eye as long as he keeps up the pretense of hunting down bin Laden.