What many Bush supporters have never come to terms with is that Bush really thinks more like Roberts than he does Scalia or Thomas. Bush said he would nominate another Scalia or Thomas, but I don't think he ever really meant it. Look who he chose to represent him at his Convention. Bush is more "moderate" (a term often misused) than most people acknowledge. Somehow, if you talk conservative you can get away with governing more to the left. Bush is a big spender and he can be a social coward. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. We get great lines in speeches sometimes, but when it comes right down to it, he wants to "unite" more than he wants to be conservative of principled. Of course there is no such thing as uniting in our form of government. You have to settle for a majority. But too often, Bush will compromise way early, when with more courage he could win a majority with a conservative outcome. Reagan was never ashamed of being a conservative. He never ran from it. Bush and Roberts are alike in their acting ashamed of conservatism. If it is something even so-called proponents are ashamed of, then how can we expect to ever win?
One example of many: education. The NCLB Act was a prime example of Bush talking conservative, selling out to the liberals, and then acting like he should get some sort of credit from both sides. Just the opposite. He made both sides mad. It's impossible to please everyone, and those who think they can are just arrogant or naive or perhaps dishonest. That's why principles and honesty always trump pragmatism and evasiveness (and even the elusive unity goal), especially in a representative democracy.
That's exactly it. And the problem began as soon as he uttered that horrid phrase "compassionate conservative", as if to imply that the word conservative would normally suggest something the opposite.
Just imagine a liberal saying, "Yeah, I'm a liberal, but I'm a compassionate liberal."