You've been on FR long enough to know that it's exhibited by Bushbots as well. Only they have an even narrower criterion for conservativeness than the "fringers" do. To them, "conservative" is defined solely according to one's willingness to support Bush. It's defined around a single person.
[[You've been on FR long enough to know that it's exhibited by Bushbots as well. Only they have an even narrower criterion for conservativeness than the "fringers" do. To them, "conservative" is defined solely according to one's willingness to support Bush. It's defined around a single person.]]
I have never stated that there aren't those who merely rubber stamp the Bush line, but I disagree they have an even 'narrower criterion', only a different one. You are enagaging in a rhetorical tit for tat. For conservatism to succeed, it has to cast a big umbrella, it has to exhibit tolerance for differences of opinion, whether one 'toes the Bush line' without questioning or one adheres inflexibly to an ideological ideal, they have to all fit under the umbrella. Disagree, yes, but disagree constructively, leave the demonization and alienation to the progressive left. The public responds favorably to positive images, even when there are disagreements, let the left self-destruct, we do not need to follow their path to the same fate.