(Knocked over with a feather)
"What you are demanding is that everything the President does is agreeable to all conservatives for him to be called a conservative by you....
On the other hand, I do not expect more of President Bush than I did of President Reagan, and know that it is not possible for a man to be President and stay conservative in every single decision. Sometimes compromises are made. Sometimes mistakes are made (big miscalculations, like CFR). "
Rather I am "demanding" the President at minimum hold the hold on conservative tenets. I understand compromises must be made and negotiated, but Dubya's cumulative conservative "achievements" have simply not met the standards expected -- not only from me -- but from many conservative Republicans.
"The difference between us doesn't seem to be so much in our political views, but in our expectations of what a human being who has an inordinate amount of pressure on him from all sides, can realistically do."
Agreed, but handling that "pressure from all sides" is what leadership is all about, and adhering to principle in the face of it.
"For me, the strength of the military, and American sovereignty abroad, the protection of this country against terror, the strong, unflagging stand on moral issues, and the incredible moves toward Constitution-honoring judges, more than compensate for the signing of CFR."
Mixed bag here, OWF...
Dubya's display of inspiration and "strength of military," his stand against the WoT, his stand on moral issues are all admiral achievements....
However the domestic sovereignty issue -- his lack of border enforcement and undercutting the WoT -- is HUGELY undermining "leadership" in what should be a no-brainer.
As far as judicial appointments, Dubya has been s-l-o-w. And he should have tossed EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bubba judicial and administrative personel out on their keister -- just the way Bubba had done with Bush 41's personel.
"In my view, conservatives who openly fight against him, are hurting the conservative cause by splintering and whining and criticizing when we should be supporting him against an extremely evil political foe.
I choose to fight the left. You choose to fight the President."
The President was rewarded with my support of him in the last two elections.
OWF, I reckon our differences are in whether or not the President needs OR should be taken to task for bad policy, and that opinion voiced.
The President shall continue to get my support on an issue by issue basis, and criticized when he is wrong...
In the meantime, the Left is ALWAYS wrong, therfore we shall continue to fight them together.
Exactly. And most thinking conservatives, including myself, followed the above during Reagan's Presidency and the SR. Bush - in fact for EVERY presidency. Why would we or should we do anything differently for GW?
BTW, I marvel at your responses on this thread. They are the most intelligent, rational, logical and comical bar none. Keep up the excellent work.
See, F16, it just proves that your 'lemming' insult is invalid. Maybe you should have asked me what I thought before you used it (erroneously) against me??
In the meantime, the Left is ALWAYS wrong, therfore we shall continue to fight them together.
Excellent!
And have you ever pondered as to why the left HATES President Bush so much?? Do they hate him because he is a 'socialist' just like they are? Do they hate him because he grows the government just like they do?
Or do they hate him because he actually is a conservative (pro-life, pro-defense, pro-military) who is ripping the Dem party to shreds, and destroying any hope they had for a future by his savvy political strategy?
I will posit the view that the left hates Bush even more than they hated Reagan (which they do) because he is accomplishing even more for conservatism than Reagan did.
And I do think that history will back me up on that. I just hope I'm around long enough to see the results of his under the radar policies deeply affect this great country for the good, and move it significantly back to the right.